GhostWriter16
Deity
My sincerest apologies for expecting honesty.
Best GOP Candidate
- Thread starter orrery
- Start date
- Status
My sincerest apologies for expecting honesty.
The Recovery Plan did a lot of road construction. There is your socialism part. I said your definition. See your double standard?
http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system
Eisenhower was asked by Democrats to run in 1948 and 52. He had the same domestic policy, only foreign policy really differed from the Democratic candidate that was chosen, and back then foreign policy wasn't really a partisan thing.
http://www.history.com/topics/interstate-highway-system
Eisenhower was asked by Democrats to run in 1948 and 52. He had the same domestic policy, only foreign policy really differed from the Democratic candidate that was chosen, and back then foreign policy wasn't really a partisan thing.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
No, I don't. After all, I support constructing roads.
So? They knew he would have a good chance of winning, so why not associate yourself with him? Also, notice that he turned them down. If he was like a Democrat so much, why not run as one?
And as kochman said, the parties have changed a lot since 1948. You'd have to look at how liberal or conservative he was.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
It's uberidealism... Politicians make compromises all the time, FOR what they believe to be the greater good.
Question...
Option 1) A good Republican candidate, who was totally honest and never changed his opinions, but had almost zero chance of winning ran against a total disaster from the Democratic party that had a pretty good chance of winning...
Option 2) A good Republican candidate, who was totally honest and sometimes changed his opinions, and had a decent chance of winning ran against a total disaster from the Democratic party that also had a pretty good chance of winning...
Which do you choose? And why?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Irrelevant to today.
The Dems and Repubs are so different today then from how they are now...
In fact, this far back, blacks tended to vote Repub because the Southern Dems were hardcore racists.
The parties have changed too much for this to matter.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Two. Because I think someone who's good but once changed his opinions for the better is better than the total disaster Democrat that would likely win.
But to be fair, Domination's point is that Romney isn't totally honest. Now I disagree with that, but considering that if it were true, he does have a valid point.
_random_
Jewel Runner
Nah, the black vote had trended Democratic in national elections since 1932. Thank FDR for that one.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Had started to, true... but nowhere near where it is today, at about a 90% lock every year.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/when_did_blacks_start_voting_democratic.html
The thing you left out of your considerations is the parties. To what extent can a politician buck their party? Go back 30 years, and a politician that voted with their party more than 70% of their time was a party stalwart. The parties were very mixed on ideology. And any number of them may have voted with their party as little as half the time. And were still members in good standing. Now the Republicans marginalize any of their members that don't vote with the party over 90% of the time. And on certain big votes, they want 100% party loyalty.
And the simple fact is, that anyone voting with the Republicans more than 70% of the time is pretty much the definition of a complete disaster.
The Republican party is the problem with American politics these days.
A bad Democrat is inherently better than any "good Republican" that the rest of the Republicans would be willing to support.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I get that...In America, if you win 61% of the vote, then it is considered a landslide.
Also, read your link better. It says that the majority of black people considered themselves Democrats in the 1948 election.
What I'm saying is, that 39 percent, it's a far cry from today's 5-10% that the Repubs get.
_random_
Jewel Runner
To be fair, the Republicans haven't nominated Ike Freakin Eisenhower in some time.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Well, Option 2 is still totally honest, he just changed his views. Romney is dishonest.
That said, if Option 2 were dishonest about major issues, and I knew this, I'd vote for Option 1 because I'm not fearful enough to compromise. God will protect us
Huayna Capac357
Deity
God will protect us
I know you put the
smily, so you are probably being sarcastic, but do you honestly believe that Obama is doing anything at all that is anti-God or anti-Christian and that God will intervene in an election?GhostWriter16
Deity
I don't see that in all Republicans. For instance, Dr. Paul disagrees with the GOP a lot. That said, the problem you illustrate seems to exist in both parties. There are a couple situations where a large group dissents on one issue (Take, for instance, the DFLA refusing to vote with other Democrats on things supporting abortions) but for the most part, both parties are partisan.
I think I could say the same thing about a Democrat. But its no more true for the GOP than it is for the Dems.
No, the partisan political system (Which comments like these contribute to) is the problem. We need politicians to stop supporting stupid things to simply be against the other guy, and we need more liberty-supporting people in office.
I think many Republicans would support *Anyone* over Obama, so that's almost irrelevant.
Obama done anything anti-God? Well, I think supporting abortions is pretty anti-God and such. But I don't think that he hates Christians or anything like that (Although his own Christianity seems very political, and I'm not convinced he really believes he is one.)
As to God intervening in an election, I think he *Can* because ultimately he's in control, but there's literally no way of knowing to what extent, if any, he does so.
And the simple fact is, that anyone voting with the Republicans more than 70% of the time is pretty much the definition of a complete disaster.
The Republican party is the problem with American politics these days.
A bad Democrat is inherently better than any "good Republican" that the rest of the Republicans would be willing to support.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
Not since Ronnie Reagan... about the only Republican I have consistently liked over the years.
But even in the year with out DDE, they were managing well over 5-10% of the black vote until Barry Goldwater or whoever it was decided to be against the CRA...
What a jerk... The ironic thing, more Repubs, I believe, voted for the CRA than Dems.
That's true, and then the conservative Dems wildly switched to becoming Republicans, Nixon embraced the political shift, and the rest, shall we say, is history. Individual republicans, when they actually try, and get 25% or more of the Black vote (I believe Jack Kemp enjoyed some black support, for example), but there is a lot of baggage there that makes that difficult.
So, is there anyone in the field that fits my criteria? Someone whose policies I should bother looking at?
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
I know, I just find it ironic... it was just a year or two ago when the Dems lost their last KKK member/US Senator. As late as 2000 the guy had said "The N Word" on TV, etc...
I find it hard to believe any such large block of people would vote so overwhelmingly in one direction. That being said, I can't really put myself in position to understand... I am probably not aware of a TON of things that have happened to push the blacks away from the Repubs.
kochman
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2009
- Messages
- 10,818
A) I believe most of them fit into this category, which is, no new laws.
B) Military overspending... no. Medicare overspending... all.
C) IDK
D) Romney
E) Romney
- Status
