How Could The Republicans Win The White House Again??
- Thread starter IntenseOperator
- Start date
Good answer Bryanz--
Now if you can show me which changes are going to be made by either party that will make america--
-less prone to terrorist attacks
-More economically sound--via continued growth-employment-and shoring up solvency of social programs already in place
-halting or slowing down illegal immigration
I'll vote a straight ticket on that party.
Appears to me the leaders of both parties coming out of Iowa did so on premise of change--and had quite enthusiatic support from their crowds--however if you ask their followers exactly what changes were they speaking of a how they plan to implement these changes- most would give you this :shrug:
The 9-11 guys got nuttin' on you boys.
You guys STILL actually think it matters who you vote for?
:mj07:
You guys STILL actually think it matters who you vote for?
:mj07:
..................................................................
Sadly there is alot of truth to what yyz is saying. Even if he is one huge cheesehead.
Any of the major candidates that would get in office will change their tune once elected when confronted with insurmountable problems.
Getting out of Iraq is just one for instance.
Clinton can say she will pull the troops out and have a plan to do it with her chiefs of staff . Yeh right. In reality she knows that to pull out of there will waste everything we have done so far. All the billions we have spent, down the drain, all the American lives that have been lost, down the drain.
Because if we pulled out completely Al Sadr ass is going to move in with his army, kill all the elected officials in about a month, terroize the population and take over and install a islamic goverment.
Lets get real. It aint happening. So they are lieing if they say they will pull out all the troops.
I think we should change the way we elect the President. If its a Democrat that wins they should be required to take a Vice President from the Republican top 3 that were running. Even that shit out some.
Now if Ron Paul and Dennis K could take over we would see some big changes. It would be unlike anything we have seen in this country. But it aint happening.
Right now for me Obama has the best chance to kick some asses. He would not be liable to anyone and the Washington high people would about shit their pants if he were elected. They will do everything possible to try to get Hitlery in there with cousin Billy . They could pretty much carry on business as usual with that tandem of whitewater gate, foster, bjs, irangates, on and on.
I think yyz is right. We are kidding ourselves if we think our votes even count. We are so used to be lied to its like second nature to us.
I think you misinterpreted question--
Was looking for explaination of what the changes (either side)are-how they will be implemented--not critque on followers.
--particularily major issues I described.
Heres your chance to change a lot of minds including mine.
Will respond when time, think most of the ideas I have talked about the last few days in this thread tells you where I coming from. Don't believe that the answers that I'm looking for are necessarily in the hands of who our next generation of leaders will be, rather who they shouldn't be. It's not about who we elect, it's who we shouldn't elect. It's about new voters and changing the core of both parties. I'm not focused on single issues but I will respond.I think you misinterpreted question--
Was looking for explaination of what the changes (either side)are-how they will be implemented--not critque on followers.
--particularily major issues I described.
Heres your chance to change a lot of minds including mine.
Scott in Atlanta- I dug up these quotes for you-please enjoy-
On Voting-What we as a people dont get is that we have the power of our vote which is even more powerful than corporate backing with big bucks.
If we all want change (and I believe we ALL do) Then we need to tell our elected officials we will vote them out(and we keep voting them OUT!) if they dont think ,act and legislate with our best interests (and not corporate america's) in mind.
Want to scare the living Beegeezus out of an elected officiall- tell him you will get together with everyone at Madjacks and make sure you get a couple thosuand votes for his opponent instead of him.
Lets start in Az to get idiot Senator Jon Kyle(and his anti -internet gambling idea's out of the senate and out of office) Lets get a senator in office who wants to concentrate on subject matter just a bit more important to the US citizenry)like the war- SS- jobs, -unsafe pensions=healthcare, etc.). The guy's a jerk and is now the no2 power broker in the senate for the GOP.
He would sh-t his pants if he got a petition signed by 5 thousand voters that if he doesnt leave on- line poker players and sports /horse bettors alone we will vote against him next election and do all in our power to Vote his butt out.
the power of one vote is appears small. the power of blocks of votes is NOT-
angry voters scare Politicians(just ask GB 41)
---------------------------------------------------------
The soft, the complacent the self-satisfied societies will be swept away with the debris of history - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
=
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." -- Major General Smedley Darling Butler (1981-1940) Major General USMC, "Old Gimlet Eye'' and "Hell Devil Darling", most highly decorated military men from the pre-World War II era. Source: from a speech in 1933=
"The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it." -- John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA. 1693
On Voting-What we as a people dont get is that we have the power of our vote which is even more powerful than corporate backing with big bucks.
If we all want change (and I believe we ALL do) Then we need to tell our elected officials we will vote them out(and we keep voting them OUT!) if they dont think ,act and legislate with our best interests (and not corporate america's) in mind.
Want to scare the living Beegeezus out of an elected officiall- tell him you will get together with everyone at Madjacks and make sure you get a couple thosuand votes for his opponent instead of him.
Lets start in Az to get idiot Senator Jon Kyle(and his anti -internet gambling idea's out of the senate and out of office) Lets get a senator in office who wants to concentrate on subject matter just a bit more important to the US citizenry)like the war- SS- jobs, -unsafe pensions=healthcare, etc.). The guy's a jerk and is now the no2 power broker in the senate for the GOP.
He would sh-t his pants if he got a petition signed by 5 thousand voters that if he doesnt leave on- line poker players and sports /horse bettors alone we will vote against him next election and do all in our power to Vote his butt out.
the power of one vote is appears small. the power of blocks of votes is NOT-
angry voters scare Politicians(just ask GB 41)
---------------------------------------------------------
The soft, the complacent the self-satisfied societies will be swept away with the debris of history - John Fitzgerald Kennedy
=
"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses." -- Major General Smedley Darling Butler (1981-1940) Major General USMC, "Old Gimlet Eye'' and "Hell Devil Darling", most highly decorated military men from the pre-World War II era. Source: from a speech in 1933=
"The only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it." -- John Locke (1632-1704) English philosopher and political theorist. Considered the ideological progenitor of the American Revolution and who, by far, was the most often non-biblical writer quoted by the Founding Fathers of the USA. 1693
Great idea........someone should have thought of that years ago.............wait a minute......they did! That was how the founders set it up! The Veep used to be the guy who got the second most electoral votes. In 1800, there was a tie and the house elected Jefferson, which made Aaron Burr VP. Then the 12th Amendment changed politics in this country to the system that basically created the 2 party system we love so much today.
bryanz......your last few posts were fantastic. Inspiring. Exactly how I wan't to feel about the future. I don't even care if the Jints cover today.....b/c I already feel good. Strong work.
read a book on the 1800 election & really enjoyed it....i don't like having the executive branch having people from different parties..don't think it will work...
doc...long time giant fan..so far enjoying what i'm seeing...
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 01/06/08
In an Atlantic Monthly essay touting Barack Obama last month, political commentator Andrew Sullivan revealed his disappointment with a speech the Illinois senator gave on tax policy in September. Like many others who heard the speech, Sullivan was less than enthusiastic, describing the address as "wooden, stilted, even tedious."
But as Sullivan noted, that was part of its appeal. "It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I'd just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over," he wrote.
CYNTHIA TUCKER
MY OPINION
Obama's insistence on defying stereotypes has been at the core of his popularity. He is bright, sometimes boring, often engaging, thoughtful, occasionally cranky, visionary, usually well-informed, sometimes slightly self-righteous. And black. Always. He is a presidential candidate who happens to be black ? not a black presidential candidate. For those of us eager for America to grow into a mature accommodation with its racial diversity, that's refreshing, hopeful, reinvigorating.
In another 30 days or so, it will be clear whether Obama's campaign is a mere moment of wonder or a genuine political movement. While he has pumped up his creds with a dramatic win in Iowa, his most daunting test will come on Feb. 5, a Tsunami Tuesday when as many as 22 states, including Georgia, will hold primaries or caucuses. If he loses most of those critical contests, his presidential campaign will likely be too wounded to limp forward.
He wouldn't be a failure, by any means. He'd have done his part to further the "post-racial" realignment of American politics, along with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and even former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, who lost his 2006 bid for a Senate seat, but only by 3 percentage points. Obama would return to the Senate with the experience he's gained from the campaign trail.
But Obama will still be in the game for South Carolina's Jan. 26 Democratic primary, forcing pundits and voters alike to fully evaluate his potential as the next president of the United States. And that will take the American electorate to a place we've never been. He will be tested. So will we.
While this country has made great strides toward genuine racial equality over the past 50 years, we're still hampered by a race-consciousness that lurks just below the surface, in our reptilian brain, where stereotype, prejudice and unconscious judgments override rational considerations. That's true for all of us ? black, white and brown.
Indeed, in sizing up the presidential aspirants, some black Americans have themselves resorted to racially charged assessments. Last fall, in a rambling and nonsensical endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton, civil rights legend Andrew Young ? who, believe it or not, was once a diplomat ? declared: "Hillary has Bill behind her, and Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." Oh, my goodness.:scared :scared :142smilie
Since Obama announced his intention to seek the presidency, he has been dogged by a persistent undercurrent that suggests he is somehow not quite "black enough" ? a thread eagerly pursued by mainstream reporters and analysts. At the very least, an Obama surge should get us past that foolishness.
For their part, white voters contend they are willing to consider a "qualified" black candidate for president. According to Pew Center researchers, a review of recent elections "suggests that fewer people are making judgments about candidates based solely, or even mostly, on race." Perhaps so. But even as white voters profess themselves colorblind to pollsters, they whisper a worrisome fear that neighbors or people they know still harbor prejudices that might preclude voting for a black presidential candidate. Hmm.
Whatever happens, this has been a transformational moment in American politics. Obama has already achieved something that would have seemed impossible just a few decades ago.
.................................................................
Published on: 01/06/08
In an Atlantic Monthly essay touting Barack Obama last month, political commentator Andrew Sullivan revealed his disappointment with a speech the Illinois senator gave on tax policy in September. Like many others who heard the speech, Sullivan was less than enthusiastic, describing the address as "wooden, stilted, even tedious."
But as Sullivan noted, that was part of its appeal. "It was only after I left the hotel that it occurred to me that I'd just been bored on tax policy by a national black leader. That I should have been struck by this was born in my own racial stereotypes, of course. But it won me over," he wrote.
CYNTHIA TUCKER
MY OPINION
Obama's insistence on defying stereotypes has been at the core of his popularity. He is bright, sometimes boring, often engaging, thoughtful, occasionally cranky, visionary, usually well-informed, sometimes slightly self-righteous. And black. Always. He is a presidential candidate who happens to be black ? not a black presidential candidate. For those of us eager for America to grow into a mature accommodation with its racial diversity, that's refreshing, hopeful, reinvigorating.
In another 30 days or so, it will be clear whether Obama's campaign is a mere moment of wonder or a genuine political movement. While he has pumped up his creds with a dramatic win in Iowa, his most daunting test will come on Feb. 5, a Tsunami Tuesday when as many as 22 states, including Georgia, will hold primaries or caucuses. If he loses most of those critical contests, his presidential campaign will likely be too wounded to limp forward.
He wouldn't be a failure, by any means. He'd have done his part to further the "post-racial" realignment of American politics, along with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and even former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, who lost his 2006 bid for a Senate seat, but only by 3 percentage points. Obama would return to the Senate with the experience he's gained from the campaign trail.
But Obama will still be in the game for South Carolina's Jan. 26 Democratic primary, forcing pundits and voters alike to fully evaluate his potential as the next president of the United States. And that will take the American electorate to a place we've never been. He will be tested. So will we.
While this country has made great strides toward genuine racial equality over the past 50 years, we're still hampered by a race-consciousness that lurks just below the surface, in our reptilian brain, where stereotype, prejudice and unconscious judgments override rational considerations. That's true for all of us ? black, white and brown.
Indeed, in sizing up the presidential aspirants, some black Americans have themselves resorted to racially charged assessments. Last fall, in a rambling and nonsensical endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton, civil rights legend Andrew Young ? who, believe it or not, was once a diplomat ? declared: "Hillary has Bill behind her, and Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." Oh, my goodness.:scared :scared :142smilie
Since Obama announced his intention to seek the presidency, he has been dogged by a persistent undercurrent that suggests he is somehow not quite "black enough" ? a thread eagerly pursued by mainstream reporters and analysts. At the very least, an Obama surge should get us past that foolishness.
For their part, white voters contend they are willing to consider a "qualified" black candidate for president. According to Pew Center researchers, a review of recent elections "suggests that fewer people are making judgments about candidates based solely, or even mostly, on race." Perhaps so. But even as white voters profess themselves colorblind to pollsters, they whisper a worrisome fear that neighbors or people they know still harbor prejudices that might preclude voting for a black presidential candidate. Hmm.
Whatever happens, this has been a transformational moment in American politics. Obama has already achieved something that would have seemed impossible just a few decades ago.
.................................................................
...............................................................
roc
that makes alot of sense.
nothing to deep
Just wanted to hear how people viewed the possiblity of the improved chances for the Rep's if Obama won the nomination.
I think many, including Hillary, have really taken it easy on him to this point. If he somehow pulls out the nomination, there's a chance a lot more dirt than just taking donations from a slimy operative in Chicago politics and previous drug use. Throw in the muslim influence of his life. Throw in the obvious. I'm already reading across the net that some will jump ship (or not vote) if Hillary isn't chosen and he is. I'm not talking the usual jabber about the Right being racist. I'm talking about the Dems support not embracing him.
Also JMO
but it would seem to me the slam dunk that was a Democrat in the oval office isn't such a slam dunk anymore. I think it's going to be a lot closer than most here thought 6 months ago. Hillary definitely isn't the jaggernaut she once seemed to be.
murphy doesn't like hearing this...you make him nervous with the above statement....:142smilie
I never thought it was a slam dunk, just a good bet.
no i think you thought it was a slam dunk...
btw..answer my e-mail..
:mj07: :mj07:
good point......looper didn't know how to dig down deeper for the nuts it took to make the P.O.D. until Tanner shoved the burrito into whatever the Yankees pitcher's name was' (the coach's kid) face...
.....latest polls have Obama pounding your gal (the bet I mean).....looks like we will start seeing the GOP focusing on Barack.....
.....thoughts on Dollar Bill Bradley's endorsement anyone? Interesting Veep candidate....forgot about him....and he was my guy in 2004. It'd be great to see him back in the spotlight........smart, experienced operator........and an unbeatable two-on-two ticket!
That burrito scene was key. Tanner knew he was going to get his ass kicked, but stood up and did the right thing for his teamate. And of course ultimately we all ended up feeling bad for that Yankees kid when Vic Morrow struck him on the pitcher's mound after he threw at Englebert's head. Damn, his mom was a MILF though! She looked like she was ready to party.
999 posts! You better make the next one a classic, escarz.:SIB
Dogs has already shifted his focus to Obama. He pretty much copies Drudge, Rush, and friends so I agree that the GOP outlets will back off Hillary some and step up the Obama slinging. Most people getting tired of the routine by now.
