yeah, I didn't realize being a good politician was just about winning, no matter how many opponents you call gay or how many African Americans you purge from voter rolls... For some reason, I thought it had a lot to do with actually accomplishing things and influencing people while in office.

In any event, just to be clear... There's absolutely nothing "blind" about my hatred of Shrub.

For your consideration! I don't wholeheartedly agree with the article but I was glad I read it anyway: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/8/8894019/...-w-bush-pepfar

circular arguments are fun because circular arguments are fun.

man, your introduction to the world of politics posting isn't going very well. Maybe try being less terrible.

And speaking of terrible...

No, that is not what the word means. You do realize that this is the internet and we can look up the meanings of words, right?

I hate GW just as much as the next guy but lol he was undoubtedly a great politician. Not to be confused with being a great President or leader or. . human being.

The goal of a politician is to win elections and effect policy. The fact that some (most) don't agree with the policy Shrub influenced or created doesn't take away from the fact that he continually succeeded at those two goals.

Well, Rove did, anyway

This is what you implied in the previous post, which I reacted to. In fact, Democratic voters and independent voters seem no better.

Agreed.

However, if voters could be presented a test ballot and prove they could fill it out, that might weed out the people who can't fill in a ballot correctly. (OTOH, some people who can't read still might be competent to vote.)

I would not to me but that is one of the many reasons I will never be a billionaire. Wealth certainly matters to Trump though. I think he sees it as a score board.

Anyway, Trump won't win because he's not good at teh politicing stuff. Tyvmgn.

Offer me some odds....I'll take trump winning primary .....

Well for one you can have someone help you fill out a ballot and two why do we care if some people mess up the ballot?

From dictionary.com:

"4. Politician, statesman refer to one skilled in politics. These terms differ particularly in their connotations; politician is more often derogatory, and statesman laudatory. Politician suggests the schemes and devices of a person who engages in (especially small) politics for party ends or for one's own advantage: a dishonest politician. Statesman suggests the eminent ability, foresight, and unselfish patriotic devotion of a person dealing with (especially important or great) affairs of state: a distinguished statesman."

But hey, whatever. I don't really care anyway.

'I don't really care anyway' -> selectively pastes one section of the definition page, leaving out other parts such as:

It was the key part that explained the rest...

Thanks, interesting. Fwiw (which is very little) I don't think GWB was one of the key villains over Iraq. He was way out of his depth and too much so to even realise it.

DS talks about voters not being qualified but perhaps we should be talking about top politicians being qualified. Tricky to do when the sort of privilege he enjoyed can mask how mediocre he was but even so.

I guess that's why you picked a definition that didn't support your argument.

+1 to the boldfaced.

F Roosevelt said something like 'i've never thought i was particularly intelligent but feel like i have a PhD in people'.

Having a PhD is people is pretty important.

For all the people who dismiss Trump's chances: Berlusconi.

In a Trump v. Hillary election Trump gets like 80% of the married white men over 40. He's what they wished they had been, and she's what they have.

Obama lost the white male vote and still had sweeping victories. Having the white male vote doesn't guarantee anything. I believe the figures were somewhere around 40/60 Obama, and he still crushed it.

Trump has no chance to become the nominee. The obvious candidate will be Jeb. Possibly Scott Walker if Jeb really screws it up, and there is no indication that he will do anything catastrophically bad. The Bush family effectively has a team of Roger Mayweathers in their corner for coaches. They won't make mistakes, they'll raise the money needed, and they'll do what will work to win.

And lol at people saying Dubya wasn't a great politician. Politics aren't about honesty, integrity, intelligence, etc. Politics are about winning. His attacks on McCain were a perfect example of that. It was dirty and dishonest, but it worked. And that's all that matters.

To further illustrate this point : how many runner ups to the White House are considered "good politicians"? Is Romney? Is McCain? Is Gore? How about John Kerry?

If Hillary loses the bid this time around, will she still be considered a good politician? Of course not. Each of these people can be considered fantastically successful and gifted people in their own right, yet without the ultimate goal of winning, they would be considered failures in the world of politics.

How much do you need odds wise? Ill give you 5/2.

lol @ 5/2.

http://www.oddsshark.com/entertainme...s-2016-futures

http://www.paddypower.com/bet/politi...grp_ids=791149

Voter turnout was a huge factor in 2012. Many Republican voters were not very excited about Romney. Many viewed him as weak politically. The real question is how would Trump do in they "swing states"?" I agree that Trump's chances of getting the nomination are slim. Personally I think Jeb has made a few huge mistakes at this point.

Forget the white part.

I can't see why Trump is any worse than Bush or Walker or Cruz or Rubio. He's more transparently a charlatan, but that may help him with the majority who don't usually vote.

Like what?

Rooting for Trump for more lolz