I think he honestly wants to bring a new style of politics to America, and get away from the bipartisan crap that has enveloped Washington ever since Clinton took the White House.
Partisan politics were certainly not born in the Clinton White House.
He would not be the first to run on a "uniter" platform, and I fail to see any reason why he would succeed where others have failed to even try.
I'm not sure how this guy "honestly" wants to do this. Is he not participating in the same bipartisan game here? Is he going to run outside the two-party system? Is he not going to attack his opponents? Is he not going to accept funding from outside sources?
He is young and isn't tied to a party line or a voting record. He hasn't been corrupted by Washington. He is extremely well spoken and very intelligent.
He definitely is well spoken and very intelligent. But I don't understand how he hasn't been "corrupted by Washington"? On what do you base that?
I think he is the most honest politician I've ever heard of. He has admited to using coke and pot, and doesn't hide from that or deflect it. That speaks alot to me about his character, and lessens my skepticism about his sincerity towards a new style of politics.
It's certainly nice to see someone be honest about their past, but am I supposed to pretend that past doesn't exist since they admit to it? Furthermore, isn't it valid to ask how that person with a bad past has fundamentally changed?
If you really believe that you are very inexperienced with the political system. He has no shot to even win his primary.
I am not inexperienced, and I think he has a shot to win not only the primary, but the presidency. I don't believe that it's "his to lose" by any stretch ... it's too early to say that about any candidate ... but neither do I think those who want him to run are heads-in-the-clouds dreamers.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Why does the man turn into George Jefferson whenever he speaks on the south side of Chicago?
I've searched for video but I can't find anything... I think he's even said "ain't" a few times. wtf?
Let me ask you this, do you speak the same way in, for example, a college classroom, or in a strict professional setting, as you do when hanging out with your friends and family? If you say yes, A: you're lying, or B: there is a stick in your ass that you should consult with a doctor about the possibility of having it removed.
All this shows is he is more relaxed with a certain demographic. Big deal. It shows he is a real person, and not some stuffed suit.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
You forgot about that slavery issue which he brought an end to.
Not really. i'm not trying to be a prick, nor am i taking up sides on the Abe Lincoln argument, but in all historical fairness, and accuracy, this can't really be credited to Lincoln. He did, in fact, issue the emancipation proclamation, but it was little more than a strategical move. First of all, The E.P. only proclaimed freedom for slaves in those states that had seceded from the union. There were several slave states still loyal to the union which the E.P. didn't touch. Those slaves were still considered legal. Also, if you think about it, he was making laws for states he was no longer in control of! Those states were no longer part of the union, therefore did not recognize Lincoln as their president! Thats kind of like the canadian prime minister issuing decrees for the United States. Completely meaningless.
Furthermore Lincoln had made it clear from the beginning that his primary objective was the saving of the union. He was clear that if he could save the union, and free no slaves, he would do that. If saving the union required him to emancipate them, well, he would do that too.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Not really. i'm not trying to be a prick, nor am i taking up sides on the Abe Lincoln argument, but in all historical fairness, and accuracy, this can't really be credited to Lincoln. He did, in fact, issue the emancipation proclamation, but it was little more than a strategical move. First of all, The E.P. only proclaimed freedom for slaves in those states that had seceded from the union. There were several slave states still loyal to the union which the E.P. didn't touch. Those slaves were still considered legal. Also, if you think about it, he was making laws for states he was no longer in control of! Those states were no longer part of the union, therefore did not recognize Lincoln as their president! Thats kind of like the canadian prime minister issuing decrees for the United States. Completely meaningless.
Furthermore Lincoln had made it clear from the beginning that his primary objective was the saving of the union. He was clear that if he could save the union, and free no slaves, he would do that. If saving the union required him to emancipate them, well, he would do that too.
Lincoln thought secession illegal. States branching off from the federal government is nothing like one countrys prime minister issuing decrees to another country. Lincoln really did emancipate them, thus really bringing an end to slavery.
Lincoln thought secession illegal. States branching off from the federal government is nothing like one countrys prime minister issuing decrees to another country. Lincoln really did emancipate them, thus really bringing an end to slavery.
They states in rebellion didn't ask. They simply seceded and did not recognize Lincoln or his decrees. i'm not trying to get in a fight here and i won't argue the point. But for all the reasons i outlined, in all fairness it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery not the E.P. and not, truly Lincoln.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
They states in rebellion didn't ask. They simply seceded and did not recognize Lincoln or his decrees. i'm not trying to get in a fight here and i won't argue the point. But for all the reasons i outlined, in all fairness it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery not the E.P. and not, truly Lincoln.
The abolishment of slavery began with Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and ended with the Thirteenth Amendment. An estimated four million slaves were freed by the E.P. while the thirteenth amendment freed the remaining 40,000 slaves in Kentucky. I think its fair to say that Lincoln brought an end to slavery.
Yeah, I don’t know that much about the guy but he sounds wonderful on the surface. Pointing out problems with healthcare, dependency on oil, the economy, and changing politics always has a nice ring to it. Easy to talk about it, we’ll see how it goes...
It's certainly nice to see someone be honest about their past, but am I supposed to pretend that past doesn't exist since they admit to it? Furthermore, isn't it valid to ask how that person with a bad past has fundamentally changed?
Yeah I’m not sold on the guy either but, your saying this guy has a “bad” past? Is that a reality? or a fact? or a truth? or just a moral judgment?
Our last two presidents did coke in their past….I don’t really care, just seems like a minor thing.
It's certainly nice to see someone be honest about their past, but am I supposed to pretend that past doesn't exist since they admit to it? Furthermore, isn't it valid to ask how that person with a bad past has fundamentally changed?
He's not claiming to have been a total stoner or a coke fiend. I don't think someone who admits to having tried a few things can be said to have a "bad past." I'm assuming, of course, that he didn't try them last week, that it was probably in high school or college, a time of life when most of us kept quite busy doing stupid things. Getting high or doing a few lines at a party really isn't a big deal in my book. Addiction or a criminal record would be a "bad past," not experimentation.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Comments
Partisan politics were certainly not born in the Clinton White House.
He would not be the first to run on a "uniter" platform, and I fail to see any reason why he would succeed where others have failed to even try.
I'm not sure how this guy "honestly" wants to do this. Is he not participating in the same bipartisan game here? Is he going to run outside the two-party system? Is he not going to attack his opponents? Is he not going to accept funding from outside sources?
He definitely is well spoken and very intelligent. But I don't understand how he hasn't been "corrupted by Washington"? On what do you base that?
It's certainly nice to see someone be honest about their past, but am I supposed to pretend that past doesn't exist since they admit to it? Furthermore, isn't it valid to ask how that person with a bad past has fundamentally changed?
Here's another childish comment:
Why does the man turn into George Jefferson whenever he speaks on the south side of Chicago?
I've searched for video but I can't find anything... I think he's even said "ain't" a few times. wtf?
If you really believe that you are very inexperienced with the political system. He has no shot to even win his primary.
Obama? whats makes you think that? and how are you such an expert?
who will be the Democratic and Republican nominees?
Funny how you find ways to discredit anybody who has done wonders to advance the status of black people in America.
Let me ask you this, do you speak the same way in, for example, a college classroom, or in a strict professional setting, as you do when hanging out with your friends and family? If you say yes, A: you're lying, or B: there is a stick in your ass that you should consult with a doctor about the possibility of having it removed.
All this shows is he is more relaxed with a certain demographic. Big deal. It shows he is a real person, and not some stuffed suit.
Not really. i'm not trying to be a prick, nor am i taking up sides on the Abe Lincoln argument, but in all historical fairness, and accuracy, this can't really be credited to Lincoln. He did, in fact, issue the emancipation proclamation, but it was little more than a strategical move. First of all, The E.P. only proclaimed freedom for slaves in those states that had seceded from the union. There were several slave states still loyal to the union which the E.P. didn't touch. Those slaves were still considered legal. Also, if you think about it, he was making laws for states he was no longer in control of! Those states were no longer part of the union, therefore did not recognize Lincoln as their president! Thats kind of like the canadian prime minister issuing decrees for the United States. Completely meaningless.
Furthermore Lincoln had made it clear from the beginning that his primary objective was the saving of the union. He was clear that if he could save the union, and free no slaves, he would do that. If saving the union required him to emancipate them, well, he would do that too.
They states in rebellion didn't ask. They simply seceded and did not recognize Lincoln or his decrees. i'm not trying to get in a fight here and i won't argue the point. But for all the reasons i outlined, in all fairness it was the thirteenth amendment that abolished slavery not the E.P. and not, truly Lincoln.
Yeah I’m not sold on the guy either but, your saying this guy has a “bad” past? Is that a reality? or a fact? or a truth? or just a moral judgment?
Our last two presidents did coke in their past….I don’t really care, just seems like a minor thing.