PPP-IA: Braley +1

[Recalcuate]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

[Recalcuate]

I don't claim to be an expert on Ernst by any means, but I would be shocked if she exuded Bachmann's amoral disingenuous arrogance and hubris. She seems a more practical down to earth kind of person, no doubt with an overly simplistic view of the world, and probably not very sophisticated, but then Iowa is kind of like that in many ways. I just find it hard to believe that if she were truly a nut case, she would be as competitive as she is, even with Braley's shortcomings.

Oh, I am the one that is Godless, not you. Don't be so hard on yourself!  

I love these standards you have for your precious Republicans.  Talk about grading on a curve.

Just because someone doesn't belong in the psych ward doesn't mean we should to elect them to the US Senate.  Honestly, it should be enough that her policies are cuckoo bonkers.  You should really cut an ad for Joni Ernst:

"Some people accuse Joni Ernst of having crazy policies ideas because she's a crazy person.  FACT:  She has never been hospitalized with a mental illness.  Joni Ernst only has crazy ideas because she's a simpleton from a God-damn farm who doesn't know any better.  So vote Ernst this November, her insane ideas are only insane because she's a stupid yokel like you, the Iowan voter."

Oh no, someone doesn't stand with you on principle, time to claim they have a mental illness, instead of them not agreeing with you on principle when it comes to your core beliefs.

This country is great because we can debate about things like abolishing the EPA (not a terrible idea to shrink government assuming some functions would be merged into other departments), whether there were WMDs in Iraq (there were, ask the New York Times this week; we can dicker over whether they were "inert" or not), and personhood (reasonable people can see things differently on abortion).

Instead, it's very easy to call someone who leads in Iowa in most polls "crazy" and move on.

Whatever makes you feel good. The intolerance of those with red icons on here though is maddening at times.

You'd never vote for Ernst, fine. We get the point. But to call a candidate "bonkers" and "crazy" because their political beliefs don't match yours, give it a rest.

[Recalcuate]

Setting all those things aside, it should be disturbing to everyone that Ernst called a mass shooting an accident, just to defend guns. How is that a normal thing to say?

Yeah because no candidate ever misspoke. Ever in the history of politics. Politically stupid, yes. Taken out of context, a bit. But evidence of mental illness. No.

[Recalcuate]

I don't claim to be an expert on Ernst by any means, but I would be shocked if she exuded Bachmann's amoral disingenuous arrogance and hubris. She seems a more practical down to earth kind of person, no doubt with an overly simplistic view of the world, and probably not very sophisticated, but then Iowa is kind of like that in many ways. I just find it hard to believe that if she were truly a nut case, she would be as competitive as she is, even with Braley's shortcomings.

Oh, I am the one that is Godless, not you. Don't be so hard on yourself! 

I love these standards you have for your precious Republicans.  Talk about grading on a curve.

Just because someone doesn't belong in the psych ward doesn't mean we should to elect them to the US Senate.  Honestly, it should be enough that her policies are cuckoo bonkers.  You should really cut an ad for Joni Ernst:

"Some people accuse Joni Ernst of having crazy policies ideas because she's a crazy person.  FACT:  She has never been hospitalized with a mental illness.  Joni Ernst only has crazy ideas because she's a simpleton from a God-damn farm who doesn't know any better.  So vote Ernst this November, her insane ideas are only insane because she's a stupid yokel like you, the Iowan voter."

Oh no, someone doesn't stand with you on principle, time to claim they have a mental illness, instead of them not agreeing with you on principle when it comes to your core beliefs.

This country is great because we can debate about things like abolishing the EPA (not a terrible idea to shrink government assuming some functions would be merged into other departments), whether there were WMDs in Iraq (there were, ask the New York Times this week; we can dicker over whether they were "inert" or not), and personhood (reasonable people can see things differently on abortion).

Instead, it's very easy to call someone who leads in Iowa in most polls crazy and move on.

Whatever makes you feel good. The intolerance of those with red icons on here though is maddening at times.

I think you missed my point.  I think if we're dissecting why someone has "eccentric" views on political issues, the part that matters is the bad policy, not whether the candidate is stupid or mentally  ill or whatever.

Personally, I find the far-right wing of the Republican Party radical, extreme and crazy.  Maybe you disagree and that's fine.  But, make no mistake, Joni Ernst is a far right-wing conspiracy theorist candidate.  That might be mainstream in today's Republican Party, but that doesn't legitimize her in any way.  True, she might actually win, I would give her almost a 50% chance of winning.  That's only an indictment of how messed up our political system is in 2014.

I find the far-right and far-left as necessary in the grand scheme of the political process. Differing viewpoints challenge traditional thinking, lead to a healthy debate on the issues and in some events enact positive change for the country.

I hardly would label Ernst as a far right-wing conspiracy theorist. I would not indict Michelle Bachmann as either crazy or evil. They serve their purpose in the political process as much as Alan Greyson and Elizabeth Warren do on the far-left.

It's one thing to call a candidate's policies "crazy" or "bonkers." But to call a candidate with differing beliefs "crazy" because you don't believe in their policies crosses the line.

[Recalcuate]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

[Recalcuate]

Sorry Torie... but she's bonkers. It may be delivered in an ever-so-slightly less bonkers package, the message is just as insane.

The fact that Braley might lose to her is an indictment of him.

Just curious, what makes Ernest "bonkers?"

If it's solely the abortion issues, reasonable people can differ. It doesn't make those that disagree with myself and presumably you on choice, "bonkers." Their principles are just different. She's entitled to her personhood argument as long as it is philosophically consistent.

If it's more than that, I'd love to hear it.

Actually, I'm pretty tired of this excuse. A person in her position advocating a VERY extreme position on reproductive rights that most pro-lifers reject is relevant and to swept aside as... just a difference of principles. Just because personhood is dead as a realistic policy prescription doesn't mean it's not irrelevant as to who is elected as one of the 100 most powerful people in the country.

I don't believe that pro-life people are bonkers, I understand the view. What is worrying is that the concept of 'personhood' isn't about being pro-choice or pro-life... it's about wanting the application of that principle as a policy prescription, and into law. That is a legitimately alarming position.

There's also the nonsense about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the alarmist and false conspiracy garbage about Agenda 21, wanting to scrap the minimum wage. Have we heard how she feels about water fluoridation?

She's entitled to have those views, however nutty and baseless some of them might be... but when someone is on the cusp of being elevated to such a high and influential office... it can and should matter and cannot be swept aside as being matters of differing principles or opinions.

Elections are the ultimate arbitrator as to whether ideas are too far out of the mainstream as far as I am concerned. It's up to the people of Iowa to determine whether Ernst's ideas are "nutty."

I have no problem with her views on WMD. They have been partially validated by the NYT article earlier this week.

Likewise, I think a few departments should be shut down and consolidated into others. The size of the government should be reduced and duplicative services over multiple departments eliminated.  Kind of like how they do things in business. Trim the upper and middle-manager fat. You don't need Homeland Security,  the DoJ, the DoD and State, for example.

Is that "nutty?" I think not.

Again... that's very flighty. "Elections are the ultimate arbiters..." Well, no - the Salem witch-trials were nutty, but because a big swathe of the population supported them at the time means that they aren't?

The article doesn't validate the WMD points at all... they weren't an active stockpile and were remnants from Saddam's weapons program from the Iran-Iraq War and the "conflict" with the Kurds. Everyone knew he had weapons from the 80s.

Revisionist history. Saddam was under orders to destroy his WMD stockpile. He didn't. Let's not forget that.  He was actively deceiving the UN.

Of course elections ultimately decide who is a suitable representative for that jurisdiction. As long as you are eligible to run for office, you have a right to run. The voters determine if your views are suitable for them or not. It's not my place to put my personal opinions in place of said voters.