Politics Former Republican Ohio Gov. John Kasich says he's now for impeaching Trump

[The Professional Fan]

Obviously, Trump ain't your Mama's Republican.

No, but he did try and grab her pussy

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Easy for you to say.

I doubt you'd ever watch this movie, but....

My wife watched it, I'm not 100% sure why... Maybe after 4 she was like time to consider the abortion route... I have no idea lol.

 

[ABM]

No, but he did try and grab her pussy

I'd say leave her her cat out of this....but I understand.

 

[ABM]

My wife watched it, I'm not 100% sure why... Maybe after 4 she was like time to consider the abortion route... I have no idea lol.

Well, there are solutions for that, as well.

 

[CupWizier]

I'm not sure who the current group of candidates are. I actually liked Gary Johnson for the most part. There's certainly some of "voting against" the two parties, but I also find most of the third-party candidates have been Libertarian and I'd typically vote that direction more so than the other smaller parties. Keep in mind I wasn't old enough to vote until 2003, 2004 (I wasn't even in the country for most of the 2004 election cycle I was in Canada) was the first "presidential candidate" I could vote for and I didn't really care enough about this stuff to care until the 2008 election and I don't remember who I voted for then. So your version of "recent decades" doesn't apply to me as much because I haven't even been old enough to vote for multiple decades.

edit: If Tulsi was a third party Candidate, I may go that way? I don't know I'm not super comfortable with her either (though I think the Russia stuff is kind of nonsense with her)...

Also, I am absolutely for having another strong party in the US. So I get it, I'm sort of voting against something or could be, but in my mind, I'm voting for things and changes I'd like to see. Think any time we vote were voting for and against something or someone I can't really get around that completely.

My issue with voting 3rd party candidates is unless they have enough of a following and have a legit chance then it's a wasted vote and might as well not vote, but then you're not being a factor in the election. I can't even think when a 3rd party candidate was a legitimate contender.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

Well, there are solutions for that, as well.

oh... I know....

 

[calvin natt]

Super easy call.

the fetuses that didnt get aborted that are now separated from their moms are on line 2

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

My issue with voting 3rd party candidates is unless they have enough of a following and have a legit chance then it's a wasted vote and might as well not vote, but then you're not being a factor in the election. I can't even think when a 3rd party candidate was a legitimate contender.

I understand but in my lifetime Oregon's never been that close to Red so I've always felt in the general election my votes going Blue anyways. Voting is supposedly how I tell the leaders in the country "what I want", it's supposed to be my "voice" in a lot of ways. I want a strong third party, I'd like it to be libertarian (it doesn't have to be I suppose), obviously it's not the only thing that's important to me when it comes to voting I probably wouldn't ever vote for a few of the smaller parties if that was my only option. What I would want them to take from it is that I'm displeased with the GOP and DNC (though I know no one cares lol). If there was an R or D who I really liked I would vote for them, but as of yet I haven't found that to be the case.

 

[ABM]

My issue with voting 3rd party candidates is unless they have enough of a following and have a legit chance then it's a wasted vote and might as well not vote, but then you're not being a factor in the election. I can't even think when a 3rd party candidate was a legitimate contender.

Probably Ross Perot.

FWIW, Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive" in 1912 and won 27% of the vote.

 

[barfo]

Probably Ross Perot.

FWIW, Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive" in 1912 and won 27% of the vote.

And a Socialist (gasp!) got 6% in that election. Which is more than any third party lately.

barfo

 

[riverman]

George Washington was our first independent party president...and he didn't want the job...the dems and republicans wanted to make him King originally...he was too independent for any of that partisan crap. Ross Perot came closest probably....people knew who Ralph Nader was at least but the general voting public has been tricked into an election cycle that censors any non bipartisan affiliations....I voted Libertarian last time and tried that route in a lose lose election...not happening this time. Sometimes in life is a process of elimination that has to occur.....and the current incompetent administration has to go. The consequences of another 4 years of Trump are just too dangerous to tolerate. It sucks that there's a bottom line this time around but it is what it is. If Kasich ran as an independent he'd probably get what Ross Perot got...not nearly enough to win. If Trump resigned and they ran Kasich or Romney or anybody, they'd have a chance to keep the White House. I think propping up Trump will crush the GOP for a long time to come. I hope that this accomplishes the rise of other political parties and gives americans a broad spectrum of choices...and I hope they learn to vet candidates properly before they are allowed to run for office

 

[CupWizier]

Probably Ross Perot.

FWIW, Teddy Roosevelt was a "Progressive" in 1912 and won 27% of the vote.

I pretty much knew it was Perot, but even at that he failed to pick up a single electoral vote (I have never been a fan of the electoral college, but that's a whole different discussion) and had less than half the popular votes of Clinton that year so he really wasn't a factor either.

As for you wanting to have a do over in the supreme court, is that really fair? I haven't seen or read anything that suggests there is a problem other than guys like you wanted pro life. I'll use Mick Mulvaney's words "get over it". Speaking of Mulvaney, that was pretty funny in his press conference where he described the Ukraine call and holding back of funding already agreed on as a quid pro quo. You just can't make this stuff up, no matter how hard they try and spin it, lol.

 

[CupWizier]

I understand but in my lifetime Oregon's never been that close to Red so I've always felt in the general election my votes going Blue anyways. Voting is supposedly how I tell the leaders in the country "what I want", it's supposed to be my "voice" in a lot of ways. I want a strong third party, I'd like it to be libertarian (it doesn't have to be I suppose), obviously it's not the only thing that's important to me when it comes to voting I probably wouldn't ever vote for a few of the smaller parties if that was my only option. What I would want them to take from it is that I'm displeased with the GOP and DNC (though I know no one cares lol). If there was an R or D who I really liked I would vote for them, but as of yet I haven't found that to be the case.

To me, when it comes to voting, it's a case of give and takes. I realize I will never agree 100% of any candidate, but I decided awhile back that I at least want a factor in the election and until a 3rd party can compete, I don't even pay attention to them

 

[Lanny]

OK, ya got me there, Lanny.

https://rtl.org/legislation/tax-dollars-paying-for-abortion/

Does Planned Parenthood use taxpayer money on abortions?
Planned Parenthood receives more than $500 million dollars in taxpayer funding every year. Much of their taxpayer money comes through Medicaid, which is jointly funded by federal and state taxpayers. Currently 17 states add their own state taxpayer dollars to pay directly for abortions. They also receive many taxpayer dollars through the Title X family planning program. There is zero meaningful separation of staff, facilities, and operational costs at Planned Parenthood clinics between government-funded services and abortions. Federal contract rules allow taxpayer funds to pay staff salaries, supplies, and facility costs on a “pro-rated” basis. It is merely an accounting gimmick; tax dollars literally pay the rent and energy costs to keep abortion clinics running and funds staff that help perform abortions. Planned Parenthood claims abortion is inseparable from their mission, and with half of their budget coming from taxpayers, it’s safe to say our tax dollars are inseparable from their abortion mission. Recent annual reports show Planned Parenthood’s dramatic increase in taxpayer funding has led them to expand abortion while cutting clients and other health services.

Title X - Family Planning:
The following legislative mandates have been part of the Title X appropriations language for a number of years. In addition, FY2019 appropriation language states that funds would be available “Provided, that amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective, and that such amounts shall not be expended for any activity (including the publication or distribution of literature) that in any way tends to promote public support or opposition to any legislative proposal or candidate for public office.”

https://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/about-title-x-grants/program-priorities/index.html

Rent and other building expenses from the Federal government is prorated such that none of it goes toward assisting abortions. I thought that was clear.

States can spend their money however they want but none of the Federal money goes toward abortions, zero.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

To me, when it comes to voting, it's a case of give and takes. I realize I will never agree 100% of any candidate, but I decided awhile back that I at least want a factor in the election and until a 3rd party can compete, I don't even pay attention to them

I think that's part of the problem though. The DNC / GOP have such a stronghold on it that no one pays attention to them, so they'll never be a "factor" because they make sure to tell everyone, hey a vote for them is a "wasted vote".

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[ABM]

You just can't make this stuff up, no matter how hard they try and spin it, lol.

If you can't make it up....and spin it into the ground, then, truly, impeachment should be an easy exercise.

 

[CupWizier]

I think that's part of the problem though. The DNC / GOP have such a stronghold on it that no one pays attention to them, so they'll never be a "factor" because they make sure to tell everyone, hey a vote for them is a "wasted vote".

I don't know about that as third party candidates have always been huge underdogs in my lifetime and have never really performed very well.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I don't know about that as third party candidates have always been huge underdogs in my lifetime and have never really performed very well.

I understand but I think it's because no one pays attention to them. The DNC / GOP are so massive and have so much of their own media outlets and all of that they can drown out third party candidates who can't get nearly the same amount of face time, can't get their thoughts and messages out to the masses the same way. I mean Hillary is already coming out and trying to stop people from running as a Third Party... It won't stop at Tulsi. Isn't it kind of circular though, they're always an underdog and never given consideration by a lot of people simply because they're seen as a wasted vote. The two major parties push that narrative too. They can never get any footing because people who WOULD vote for them have been told it's a wasted vote and because they don't want to waste their vote they pick from the two nominees even if they would otherwise choose option 3...

 

[CupWizier]

If you can't make it up....and spin it into the ground, then, truly, impeachment should be an easy exercise.

It would be if the republicans in the senate had a spine, but you have been told that many times before and will be told that every time you use that line so why keep trying to use it?

 

[CupWizier]

I understand but I think it's because no one pays attention to them. The DNC / GOP are so massive and have so much of their own media outlets and all of that they can drown out third party candidates who can't get nearly the same amount of face time, can't get their thoughts and messages out to the masses the same way. I mean Hillary is already coming out and trying to stop people from running as a Third Party... It won't stop at Tulsi. Isn't it kind of circular though, they're always an underdog and never given consideration by a lot of people simply because they're seen as a wasted vote. The two major parties push that narrative too. They can never get any footing because people who WOULD vote for them have been told it's a wasted vote and because they don't want to waste their vote they pick from the two nominees even if they would otherwise choose option 3...

There are so many reasons why a 3rd party candidate will struggle to make an impact so to try and attribute it to people saying it's a "wasted vote" isn't a very strong argument. One can also argue that people who want to vote for a 3rd party candidates is because they have a built in bias against the two main parties. Not saying you do, but I think that's also a factor. To them it's a change away from what they consider traditional candidates but look what happened this last presidential election with a non traditional candidate. We got trump. Look how that's working out? lol

 

[tlongII]

There are so many reasons why a 3rd party candidate will struggle to make an impact so to try and attribute it to people saying it's a "wasted vote" isn't a very strong argument. One can also argue that people who want to vote for a 3rd party candidates is because they have a built in bias against the two main parties. Not saying you do, but I think that's also a factor. To them it's a change away from what they consider traditional candidates but look what happened this last presidential election with a non traditional candidate. We got trump. Look how that's working out? lol

Economically it's working out quite well actually. I think Trump is going down this next election, but there is no question the economy is doing very well.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

There are so many reasons why a 3rd party candidate will struggle to make an impact so to try and attribute it to people saying it's a "wasted vote" isn't a very strong argument. One can also argue that people who want to vote for a 3rd party candidates is because they have a built in bias against the two main parties. Not saying you do, but I think that's also a factor. To them it's a change away from what they consider traditional candidates but look what happened this last presidential election with a non traditional candidate. We got trump. Look how that's working out? lol

Sure there are arguments all over the place that can be made. I do have a bit of bias vs the two parties, I won't deny that. There's a lot of reasons people don't vote third party, yes and it doesn't always come down to a "wasted vote", but I was addressing that you said (paraphrasing) that you feel like voting third party means you don't really have any effect on the outcome. Which to me you have the same effect on the outcome either way. It's one vote.
I'm not trying to tell you how to vote or anything like that. I just find it frustrating that IMO the two parties are so powerful there is basically no shot for anyone to win who doesn't align themselves with the TOP of one of them, Trump is probably the closest we've ever got but he definitely went straight to the extreme right and got those people all riled up.

 

[CupWizier]

Economically it's working out quite well actually. I think Trump is going down this next election, but there is no question the economy is doing very well.

Sure, but I don't necessarily attribute it to trump and it was at the cost of a trillion dollar deficit. Despite all of trumps horror stories of how bad the USA was during his campaign and now it's all of a sudden great because of HIM. He was fortunate to inherit a strong economy and a unemployment already in a steep decline. In the meantime he has reduced or eliminated regulations that effect clean air, clean water, safety at the workplace as well as many other negative things while he steals money that has already been appropriated for his stupid border wall at the cost of around 25 billion if he had his way. Meanwhile I drive everyday over roads that have pot holes and a pain to drive on.

 

[jonnyboy]

Meanwhile I drive everyday over roads that have pot holes and a pain to drive on.

Oregon roads are 77% state-funded, so ask your batshit crazy Governor about that one.

 

[ABM]

It would be if the republicans in the senate had a spine, but you have been told that many times before and will be told that every time you use that line so why keep trying to use it?

Because it makes no sense to me when people such as yourself continue to bandy about, and seemingly want to debate, Trump's atrocities when there's absolutely nothing short of impeachment that can be done about it.

Meanwhile, I've been waiting to see and hear y'all discuss the Democratic party candidates' solutions to the current issues...and I'm not seeing much activity there. Everyone simply wants to bash Trump. But, it occurs to me that he will be either a) fully impeached or b) unelectable. So, if he's going bye-bye either way, then who really cares? MoveOn.org

 

[ABM]

Oregon roads are 77% state-funded, so ask your batshit crazy Governor about that one.

The roads in Tennessee are wonderful. Moreover, the state is fiscally sound.

 

[UncleCliffy'sDaddy]

Sure, but I don't necessarily attribute it to trump and it was at the cost of a trillion dollar deficit. Despite all of trumps horror stories of how bad the USA was during his campaign and now it's all of a sudden great because of HIM. He was fortunate to inherit a strong economy and a unemployment already in a steep decline. In the meantime he has reduced or eliminated regulations that effect clean air, clean water, safety at the workplace as well as many other negative things while he steals money that has already been appropriated for his stupid border wall at the cost of around 25 billion if he had his way. Meanwhile I drive everyday over roads that have pot holes and a pain to drive on.

Oregon roads are 77% state-funded, so ask your batshit crazy Governor about that one.

Just an aside......in the past 2 1/2 years I have driven extensively throughout this country and seen most of it. While Oregon highways may have their issues, ours are WAY better than virtually every state’s highways I have driven on outside the west coast. And that is no small exaggeration. The highways in the Midwest (especially) are a travesty and it’s hard to understand why the trucking industry (in particular) isn’t up in arms about it. In many cases I chose to take secondary roads because they were in better condition. I was grateful to be back on western roads. And after the last trip I sold the car I bought for road tripping because I was so concerned about the beating it had taken. So maybe it ain’t saying much, but Oregon roads are better than most. And for what it’s worth, I wish we could sweep Kate Brown out of office with Donald Trump. They’re both crooks. Only the gender is different....

 

[CupWizier]

Because it makes no sense to me when people such as yourself continue to bandy about, and seemingly want to debate, Trump's atrocities when there's absolutely nothing short of impeachment that can be done about it.

Meanwhile, I've been waiting to see and hear y'all discuss the Democratic party candidates' solutions to the current issues...and I'm not seeing much activity there. Everyone simply wants to bash Trump. But, it occurs to me that he will be either a) fully impeached or b) unelectable. So, if he's going bye-bye either way, then who really cares? MoveOn.org

when he is gone, I will move on. When you are gone, I won't respond to you.

 

[riverman]

Because it makes no sense to me when people such as yourself continue to bandy about, and seemingly want to debate, Trump's atrocities when there's absolutely nothing short of impeachment that can be done about it.

Meanwhile, I've been waiting to see and hear y'all discuss the Democratic party candidates' solutions to the current issues...and I'm not seeing much activity there. Everyone simply wants to bash Trump. But, it occurs to me that he will be either a) fully impeached or b) unelectable. So, if he's going bye-bye either way, then who really cares? MoveOn.org

I'm calling bs on this post....you have brought up one voting factor in your decision to vote Trumps ticket...and posted pretty regularly about his detractors while showing little awareness of the opposition candidates ….and for one single issue. I've brought up many issues ...Warren and Klobuchar have detailed plans for criminal justice reform. Warren and Sanders want to give new families some debt relief from college loans to support their ability to buy a house, start a small business or raise a child. If a candidate interests me, I read their website...I've read several. When talked about here, it just becomes lumped into .."I don't like the left wing ideology" from your camp...no details, just a generalization justified by one point of contention. Walk the walk. The talking points in the democratic debates also have pointed out health care plans...tax fairness according to income levels, our role in global diplomacy...you either listen to the debates, read their websites or just complain that you don't like them for your one reason. Hence the right wing supporters are not addressing important issues that are issues for all americans, not just those with a pro life agenda. There's plenty of common ground if one takes the time to consider it.