AlpsStranger
Jump jump on the tiger!
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
- Messages
- 5,820
This thread is dumb. We're never going to have another Democratic president again.
In 'Murica there is no Democratic party.
In 'Murica there is no Democratic party.
Can a American Republican ever be elected president of the USA again?
- Thread starter Ailedhoo
- Start date
Tommy Vercetti
The Don
Its going to happen this November. I am voting for Romney
Core Imposter
Deity
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,538
How would you feel about Bachman and Santorum as the next two Supreme Court justices Alps?
j/k
Dumanios
MLG
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,887
When the GOP get their act together, yes, there will be more Republican presidents. But that depends on whether they decide to fix America, or just have Republicans in the White House.
Don't forget Palin!
Don't forget Palin!
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
I honestly can not see anything good coming out of the GOP anytime soon. They need someone to stand firm on their policies, and Mr. Romney certainly won't (and hasn't). And yes, it seems as if the main goal is to gain the office and then work from there.When the GOP get their act together, yes, there will be more Republican presidents. But that depends on whether they decide to fix America, or just have Republicans in the White House.
Don't forget Palin!
Romney though is exactly what people in 2008 said the Repubs needed if they ever were to set foot in the White House again: a pragmatic moderate. It just happens that his prgamatism made him pander to the Tea Party in order to win the primaries, thus alienating many moderates.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Why? Its just a waste of your time. Vote Governor Johnson
Don't make me want to vote Democrat. Please, just don't.
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
I thought this article might add something to the discussion.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._mean_the_end_of_republican_party_115941.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar..._mean_the_end_of_republican_party_115941.html
Ailedhoo
wonderer
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2012
- Messages
- 7,798
Pollster Power : a article and cartoon by FilibusterCartoons on the issue of polls on the election.
Core Imposter
Deity
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,538
Whatever happens with the election next week the country will remain bitterly split.
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
I agree. I repeat, we should've listened to Washington; I guarantee, the most competent person would be elected if parties hadn't been established.
Despite the increasing polarization of America, I think the real reason it might seem like the Republicans might not get elected soon is simply some very poor particular candidates recently. Most notably Palin, since she actually became a VP nominee. Santorum is another good example. And, though not running for a national office, antics like those of Todd Akin are doing nothing to make the Republicans look competant.
But it's only been 4 years since W. was in office. And it's not like there aren't still some Republicans with plausible political platforms. McCain was a decent candidate, but had an awful VP choice. Romney is probably about the same as John Kerry in electability. There have been a few other Republican Congresspeople in recent years who could plausible receive a fair number of moderate, undecided votes.
Liberal Democratic reforms might look unfeasible, a little bit excessive, too costly, or too "big government". Whereas appealing to deeply conservative Republicans tends to make it look like either the Civil Rights movement is about to be repealed, the candidate's faith is going to be unduly favored in office, or 50+ years of scientific knowledge is going to be ignored, or some combination of all three. The difficulties with liberal reforms are mostly political ones that can be overlooked if the candidate seems sensible and agreeable otherwise. The deeply conservative issues are more likely to be deal-breakers for moderates, and conservatives if the candidates don't adhere to them, hence the Republican problems. Toeing the line can look indesicive or appear to be plainly playing politics, which aren't ideal.
So, it's possible. The Republicans just need a candidate who both is moderate enough not to repel 60% of the electorate instantly, while being regarded as similar skilled to the competitor in leadership/policymaking, and they have a chance (as the super-conservatives aren't likely to jump ship and vote for the Democratic candidate). Romney comes close to this, but I think he's compromised too much of his moderate credentials by trying to appeal to conservatives to win the present election. Though he still stands a much better chance than Santorum would have if he'd been the candidate.
But it's only been 4 years since W. was in office. And it's not like there aren't still some Republicans with plausible political platforms. McCain was a decent candidate, but had an awful VP choice. Romney is probably about the same as John Kerry in electability. There have been a few other Republican Congresspeople in recent years who could plausible receive a fair number of moderate, undecided votes.
Liberal Democratic reforms might look unfeasible, a little bit excessive, too costly, or too "big government". Whereas appealing to deeply conservative Republicans tends to make it look like either the Civil Rights movement is about to be repealed, the candidate's faith is going to be unduly favored in office, or 50+ years of scientific knowledge is going to be ignored, or some combination of all three. The difficulties with liberal reforms are mostly political ones that can be overlooked if the candidate seems sensible and agreeable otherwise. The deeply conservative issues are more likely to be deal-breakers for moderates, and conservatives if the candidates don't adhere to them, hence the Republican problems. Toeing the line can look indesicive or appear to be plainly playing politics, which aren't ideal.
So, it's possible. The Republicans just need a candidate who both is moderate enough not to repel 60% of the electorate instantly, while being regarded as similar skilled to the competitor in leadership/policymaking, and they have a chance (as the super-conservatives aren't likely to jump ship and vote for the Democratic candidate). Romney comes close to this, but I think he's compromised too much of his moderate credentials by trying to appeal to conservatives to win the present election. Though he still stands a much better chance than Santorum would have if he'd been the candidate.
Core Imposter
Deity
- Joined
- May 13, 2011
- Messages
- 4,538
Reagan's election was made possible by Carter's failure. Which spread over a whole term.
Obama's failure is not so clear to people because they mistake the situation. The financial collapse was due to liberal policies, social, fiscal, and monetary that were in most cases continued by Bush. Bush's priority was the war on terror and so he was pretty liberal on other issues so that he could spend his political capital on the war effort. Then came the collapse, which of course had nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism but the truth has been hidden by the false liberal narrative.
Most Republicans have bought into the demographics narrative that seem to require a big tent approach. Equivocate or die. So when the Tea Party movement began there were no legitimate conservatives of national stature to lead them. Perry was one of the few who ran and wasn't up to the task. So we nominated an opportunist liberal in Romney. Electing him will solve nothing.
The government will continue to print money to pay for Free Ponies until fiscal calamity leads to famine and war. Only then, when the people repent of their evil, will liberalism be exposed for what it is and then there be another chance for another conservative leader to step forward and restore liberty, morality and honor to America.
If Obama is elected we will spend the next four years in resistence, doing everything we can to prevent him from suceeding in destroying America. If Romney is elected we will spend the next four years in resistence, doing everything we can to prevent him from suceeding in destroying America.
We will of course fail. The slaughter of innocents will continue for a time. But not forever.
Obama's failure is not so clear to people because they mistake the situation. The financial collapse was due to liberal policies, social, fiscal, and monetary that were in most cases continued by Bush. Bush's priority was the war on terror and so he was pretty liberal on other issues so that he could spend his political capital on the war effort. Then came the collapse, which of course had nothing to do with conservatism or capitalism but the truth has been hidden by the false liberal narrative.
Most Republicans have bought into the demographics narrative that seem to require a big tent approach. Equivocate or die. So when the Tea Party movement began there were no legitimate conservatives of national stature to lead them. Perry was one of the few who ran and wasn't up to the task. So we nominated an opportunist liberal in Romney. Electing him will solve nothing.
The government will continue to print money to pay for Free Ponies until fiscal calamity leads to famine and war. Only then, when the people repent of their evil, will liberalism be exposed for what it is and then there be another chance for another conservative leader to step forward and restore liberty, morality and honor to America.
If Obama is elected we will spend the next four years in resistence, doing everything we can to prevent him from suceeding in destroying America. If Romney is elected we will spend the next four years in resistence, doing everything we can to prevent him from suceeding in destroying America.
We will of course fail. The slaughter of innocents will continue for a time. But not forever.
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
Forcing your religion and false science upon others is not liberty. Allowing big-business to control the lives of people isn't liberty. Taking away the rights of others just because you feel like it is not liberty. Nothing about conservatism brings to mind the word "liberty".
Exposing liberalism? As far as I can see, the term "liberal" is a word with a great hate for the bearer attached to it, so if by exposing liberalism you mean showing people what they have done for America, be my guest.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
When he says "liberty", what he really means is "creepy fascistoid hatefulness". The clue is in the fact that he follows it up with "morality" and "honour", signifiers which don't have much weight in historical or contemporary libertarian circles, but are pretty big with creepy hateful fascistoids. Gotta read between the lines, y'know?
CocoIsKing28
Slightly less stupid
Murky
Deity
Voting Republican has become synonymous with voting Plutocrat.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
ftfy.
