Bobby Jindal has joined the Trump bashing, big time: http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/2015/09/10/full-transcript--gov-jindal-speech/71999792/
I gotta give Jindal some love for the creativity of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBJb9D8_kj0 His speech there is okay, I guess, but this video, snarky as it is, pretty sharply nails trump. It was ironic that I saw on the day that trump said, "We are gong to win so much that people are going to get tired of winning."On the money as Jindal's rant on Trump may be, I'm not sure he realizes that while he is scolding Trump, he's indirectly chastising Trump's supporters who are immensely enjoying that Trump is "sticking it" to everyone they dislike. Jindal is indirectly telling them that they must put away their favorite toy and come to dinner and eat vegetables instead of cake. Good Luck with that Bobby, good luck.
I find it very interesting that Jindal is attacking Trump, no holds barred, while Cruz is sucking up to him big time. Cruz at the recent Iran protest reminded me of Dustin Hoffman's character Ratso Rizzo in the movie Midnight Cowboy, with John Voigt. Trump even referred to their relationship as a "romance". You don't suppose that they are.........
You don't think they are planning to share a ticket do you?
Trump is all about Trump, harder to say with Cruz. If I had to guess, Trump would eye Cruz with the same perspective he would an apprentice, "What can you do for me?" When the dust begins to settle, I would think Cruz needs a guy like Trump much more than the other way around. Cruz can't deliver any voters that Trump doesn't already have. If trump is the top bill, I think he grabs somebody outside of the current contesters because he will have made them all irrelevant. Trump doesn't seem to like irrelevant people because he likes "winning"
Please readers, I seek enlightenment, not interference in your political machinations.I read the comments on this thread. I then read the speech by Gov Jindal.At this point I had to look up the Governors references and investigate his political connections and leaning. Like Trump, I had never heard of the man.So now I know he is a Potential /actual runner for the Pub nomination.( I do like the way pflunky uses that handle).and I also know he is unlikely to create much of a ripple in the contest.What I seek is the apolitical opinion of readers here as to the effect the speech will have on the Thumpers campaign?.I read the speech by Jindal twice, perhaps because he stated so many of my beliefs concerning Trump, I believed just about every word. Where our two nations differ so greatly is that you manage to denigrate one of your own, rather than wait for the opposition to do so.Louman has banged my head against the wall for years, he tells me the independents decide who will win the Presidential election. It has taken two campaigns but the message has finally became obvious. Even to the extent that perhaps the major parties are irrelevant in determining the outcome; or is that a bridge too far?Cheers from Aussie
King,Considering that just about the all the candidates are considered to be decisively left of center (Hillary and Bernie) or right of center (all the Republicans) it's hard to ask for an apolitical opinion. I consider myself independent as I voted Republican as recently as 2000. Nobody on this site, however, would put me in that category. What makes an independent voter is a good question. At present, I would say it is entirely predictable who each of the regulars here are going to vote for. Since all of us have bitched about most of the likely candidates, we will likely vote against who we know we don't want, which is the candidate of the other party. That said, my gut feeling is that Jindal's speech doesn't amount to much. Multiple conservative types have already much the same thing. It seems non sequitur to me to tell people that you understand why they support him but why they nonetheless need to stop supporting him in favor of someone who allegedly represents everything they say they hate. Nobody here will buy this outlook, but I believe that the rise of Trump is the logical conclusion to what Reagan started. He promises greatness. He delivers ridicule of everyone. He promises that everything in the world will be okay if he is elected and that merely saying the word America will make everyone in the world sigh and get a gleam in their eye. Heck, Jindal kinda sounds like Carter giving the infamous malaise speech IMO.
Louman is right independents do decide elections. but they are neither far left or far right, King they are centrists.
What makes an independent voter is a good question. At present, I would say it is entirely predictable who each of the regulars here are going to vote for. Since all of us have bitched about most of the likely candidates, we will likely vote against who we know we don't want, which is the candidate of the other party. Independents can be centrists, left of center, right of center. What makes an independent is the ability to vote for the candidate they believe will best serve the country. Failing that the candidate that will do the least amount of damage.Please tell me who I am going to vote for as I am clueless as to the best candidate for the country. I know the candidates that will further fragment this country, do more damage to the country (in my opinion only). The country needs a president that will unite the country, maybe that's no longer possible. A president that can compromise with both parties, congress. Maybe that's no longer possible.As proven by Obama and his speeches before his election words are just words and what we need today is the words that lead to action. Which candidate left or right has spoken the magic words, unite, compromise?
Can I unite with a 47% taker? Highly doubtful. The blue and red States are maybe as far apart as 1860. Repealing layer upon layer of socialist dogma? Not worth the effort if possible at all.A peaceful split would make more sense.
But then you would have the Palestinian issue in America... California (Gaze) would want a thoroughfare to the East Bank....
What happened to "One country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? Have any of the candidates even mentioned this?
Not one person left or right have talked about uniting a fractured country.
“What happened to "One country, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? Have any of the candidates even mentioned this? “It probably when the way of the ‘under God’ bit....“Not one person left or right have talked about uniting a fractured country.”Not one candidate wants to let go of the reins of social control long enough to let people figure it out. It is their control and manipulation that create the divisiveness. Besides divide and conquer is a time tested practice... particularly if those pulling the levers care less about the country than they do about power.
"Please tell me who I am going to vote for as I am clueless as to the best candidate for the country. I know the candidates that will further fragment this country, do more damage to the country (in my opinion only). " Unless the Democrats put up Jim Webb, is there much doubt you will vote for anyone who isn't a Democrat? I'll admit, if it's Hillary, I will not be happy pulling that lever and could possibly vote Green. I can find agreement here and there with what Republican's are saying, and I always have. But therein lies the rub, I can't vote for that little piece that I like, I have to take the whole enchilada and the inflexible party line that goes with it. Not saying it's not true the other way cause it certainly is. Considering that neither party really actively does the things I want to see done, it comes down to voting for who will do the least of what I don't like. At one time, that was the Republican party. These days it is Democrats. I have no idea who each one of us likes the most, but when the final candidates are selected for each party, I do think it will be pretty simple to pick who will vote Republican and who will vote Democrat.
Unlike your hold the nose vote for Hillary, I see no point in voting for a fringe party and dislike holding my nose to vote for more of the same. In the end, a protest of not voting for a corrupt candidate may be the answer to what I see as what's best for the country.Democrats will always vote for a democrat. Republicans will always vote for a republicanThe rest of the country will stay home and eat bon bons and the winner can claim a mandate to further push this country into a more divided nation.
I just vote my conscience... fringe party or not, win, lose or draw..... and keep repeating 'Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness'. 'Best for the Country' is such a subjective and divisive concept, especially when little of the discussion involves the constitution.
Here in Britain the labour party is going to elect their leader on Saturday. One of the candidates is Jeremy Corbyn. Arguably farther left than Bernie Sanders. His general theme is ‘Using Government to Make Life Better for Everyone’. Over the past 3 months bookies have watched his odds of winning go from a firm outside of 100 to 1 to today’s latest of 1 in 16 ... looking better from a betting perspective that all the others who have put their hats in the ring. Of course Britain has been a true nanny state for far longer than the US so the direction is not really surprising...
He won and is now leader of the opposition party with 59% of the party faithful voting for him... I wonder if the rise of Bernie Sanders is at all an accident....