Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How The GOP Could Gain Votes  
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8027 posts, RR: 26
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

So I was chatting with some folks over a couple beers, visiting Americans as it were, and we got to talking about the image problem the GOP has back home, and how they keep failing to secure both younger and independent voters. And it dawned on me: they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left, push it, and build a social movement around it as has been done with same-sex marriage. Democrats won't touch it (and haven't thus far) because they don't want to be seen as soft on crime. It's the perfect issue to galvanize the libertarian streak in a lot of independent voters.

And frankly, it just makes sense on so many levels, aside from potential tax revenue sourcing and reduction in street crime, there are broader social benefits too. Plenty of responsible, working adults use it recreationally all over the place, but are forced to be dishonest about it. Why should they be? This is an issue of individual liberty. The GOP is the best place to start separating this issue from the distracting and lame stigma of lazy potheads.

Question is, will/would they??


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
87 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3052 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Question is, will/would they??

No. Because the GOP is guided by (in the main) rich white guys who think it's entirely defensible to get whacked on Jim Beam, but taking a spliff is immoral. Because it's a drug, unlike Jim Beam.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2129 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3029 times:

There already is a party that does much of what you suggest, they are called the Libertarian party.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
And it dawned on me: they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left, push it, and build a social movement around it as has been done with same-sex marriage.

The problem is that marijuana legalization does not have as much widespread support amongst the young and independent voters as gay marriage does, and frankly does not galvanize people as much gay marriage (which people can echo back to the civil rights movement, etc).

[Edited 2013-07-07 06:22:00]

User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3011 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 2):
The problem is that marijuana legalization does not have as much widespread support amongst the young and independent voters as gay marriage does, and frankly does not galvanize people as much gay marriage (which people can echo back to the civil rights movement, etc).

   Agreed. Same-sex marriage is usually viewed as a civil/human rights issue. Legalisation of pot (or other products) is more viewed as a recognition of what is now de facto in our society. I think what's happened recently in Washington and (I believe) Colorado is progressive, but for most legislators is not top of mind.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left,

Dennis Peron did that in 1998. When California briefly had open primaries, marijuana advocate Dennis Peron ran for the Republican gubernatorial primary. He lost to Dan Lungren who eventually lost to Grey Davis in the general election. Dennis Peron was the only Republican I had ever voted for until 2010.


The gay marriage issue has more attention because it has more money behind it than the marijuana issue. Ironically the marijuana issue almost always wins when it's on the ballot while the gay marriage issue almost always lose when it's on the ballot...



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2956 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Democrats won't touch it (and haven't thus far) because they don't want to be seen as soft on crime.

Actually, Democrats are the biggest supporters of legalizing pot. As far as crime goes, the argument is: people who do not need to be in jail will be released reducing crowding. It has opened up space in many urban jails around California by being soft on pot. But, the right has to be against it because Democrats are for it.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Well gay marriage and abortion are both issues because of religion, and unless I'm mistaken the religions of the book aren't big fans of drugs either, so this will get nowhere until religion is booted off the GOP platform. Besides if they do that, the left will have no problem doing it too, so it will not be a differentiating factor.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Maybe not a bad idea, IMHO. I personally believe that the legal marjuana issue (and legal prostitution issue for that matter) suffers because of a lack of designing a tax system for it.

But that, in itself, makes no sense because politicians (Reps AND Dems) are very astute in designing ways to steal money from the public by creating new taxes.

As 'Fly says, almost every time the marijuana issue wins public support, so why not capitalize on it?? regards...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

In my opinion, the way for the GOP to gain massive numbers of votes and be virtually unstoppable is to embrace a group with strong values of religion, family, education and other such 'traditional' values.

Hispanics

Culturally, the traditional hispanics with families are much more aligned with values and issues the Republican party supports than the Democrats.

Just that a vocal minority in the party demonizes the illegals, especially illegal family members of legal immigrants/ birth right citizens. Very reasonable immigration reform plans by President Bush were shot down in the past decade by that minority.

Even if legal Hispanic voters agree almost 100% with the Republican party platform - they are not going to vote Republican if the party wants to send grandma back to Honduras.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

"I support gay marijuana." -Emily Litella


International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2902 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 4):
The gay marriage issue has more attention because it has more money behind it than the marijuana issue.

Prop 8 ?? Tons of anti gay marriage money there.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
Well gay marriage and abortion are both issues because of religion, and unless I'm mistaken the religions of the book aren't big fans of drugs either, so this will get nowhere until religion is booted off the GOP platform.

Wine seems to be viewed quite favourably in the New Testament. Also by the Catholic church. But I guess alcohol isn't a drug now, is it ?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
Even if legal Hispanic voters agree almost 100% with the Republican party platform - they are not going to vote Republican if the party wants to send grandma back to Honduras.

It would be really cool if granny came back as a member of MS13.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2896 times:

There is support for legalization/decriminalization of small amounts of pot from Libertarians, who are sometimes seen as right of the Conservatives/Republicans. I don't think many Republicans will support changes in pot law on the Federal and State level due in parts to the Religious right, the private jail industry, law enforcement support and a general attitude toward pot/drug users that = them to liberals.

More likely the Republicans will keep their basic policies of reducing government spending especially on the poor, reducing taxes especially on the upper and 'middle' classes, reducing government regulation, increasing/maintaining spending on the military and tough on 'law and order' issues. There are using their dominance in the states to rig election districts to keep them in power (of course, Democrats have done that in the past for generations). They have put the Democrats on the defensive side of these issues, along with social issues (abortion, gay rights, civil rights for non-whites). As a result, they have continued to gain voters toward them.

Eventually another major financial crash will happen, or enough people will not vote for the 2 major parties and move to the Libertarian, Green or more progressive parties who will offer a better balance of the above and other issues


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2838 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 10):
Prop 8 ?? Tons of anti gay marriage money there.

Tons of money on both sides of the issue.
Not much money on the marijuana issue yet it consistently wins in liberal and conservative states.
Can't say that about the gay marriage issue....

As far as Prop 8 goes, there was a lot of confusion and many people voted 'yes' thinking that they were voting in favor of gay marriage when it was the opposite.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):
the private jail industry,

...and the public jails with their very influential prison guard union thugs.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 11):
Eventually another major financial crash will happen,

Impossible. Obama is in charge and we will have 8 years of Hillary as well....



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2817 times:

The way for Republicans to win in 2016 would be to introduce a legislation that sentences Hillary Clinton a lifetime in prison, making her ineligible for candidacy. Unfortunately, Obama's DOJ and the Democrats in the Senate will do everything to give her an unfair advantage by rigging the election as they did in 2012.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2818 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
mpossible. Obama is in charge and we will have 8 years of Hillary as well....

Naw, she's not running due to health reasons. They found a brain tumor during her last colonoscopy.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

Keep in mind, 11 million new illegals/criminals have been awarded US Citizenship last week. They'll reward the party in power (Democrats) for many years to come. The gay marriage issue is irrelevant to them knowing that they were the party that allowed them to jump ahead in line and be awarded citizenship.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
Unfortunately, Obama's DOJ and the Democrats in the Senate will do everything to give her an unfair advantage by rigging the election as they did in 2012.

Did you mean 2008?
There were two unknown Democratic candidates that challenged Obama in the 2012 primaries and I voted for one of them (I forgot his name).

Quoting dreadnought (Reply 14):
They found a brain tumor during her last colonoscopy.

        



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13040 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2774 times:

As to 2016, Democrats have a tough situation especially as to keeping the President's seat. As I noted above, the Republicans have policies views that are popular with enough voters, that force the Democrats into a defensive position and unable to come up with ones that will get them those lost voters. They need to find a moderate that the more liberal voting primary base will support but right now I don't know of any possible candidate. I don't think Hillary Clinton is the answer either, she has too much of a record, too connected to President Obama and her husband with their baggage.

Still the Republicans have a serious problem as well for the office of the President, they too need a moderate but also have a problem with primary voters who are dominated by radical right-Tea Party group. in 2008, McCain screwed himself with Palin as VP and didn't cover the base party voters and Obama got overwhelming support from non-white voters. In 2012 Romney came off as an uncaring rich guy that turned off many voters including economically falling white middle class voters. Not more Bushs either, 2 were enough. The possible candidates from Christie to TX's Perry just have too many problems to satisfy the base and the moderates needed to win.

Both parties may face issues from how 'Obamacare' works out or doesn't, if quality paying job creating improves or not, if the economy improves for the middle class or if go too far with social benefits cuts. Some may just say it is the Republicans turn in the top spot as want 'change'. Who know if a 3rd party either a progressive-liberal or a Tea Party/Libertarian one may develop that could skew the votes of either the Democrats or Republicans. Some voters may not be able to vote due to the recent changes by the Supreme Court on the Voting Rights Act or just not vote as believe it won't make a difference anyway. There could be another 9/11 like terror event in the USA with it's distortions. 2016 will be interesting election year.


User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2765 times:

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):

Hillary will run and she will win. (unfortunately)
She will inherit all the fools that voted for B.O., the 11 million new fmr. illegals, newer college voters and the millions of more poor people that were once middle-class that will be lining up for government handouts. In fact, she may even pick up a few Romney voters of 2012.
I see Hillary winning by a larger margin than B.O.'s margins of 2008 and 2012.
Issues such as the economy and national security wont matter because too many people will be expecting some sort of handout and electing the first female President is too important for a lot of voters so logic again will be out the door.

Christie being governor of New Jersey is just a novelty. Just like Mitt Romney, he will not be able to win his home state and I doubt he would be able to expand on the 206 electoral votes Romney won.
America is headed towards a 1 party system (Democratic) and the fall of the country will be on their watch.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

The GOP could also gain a lot of votes if they started supporting gay marriage, abortion, etc. I'm not gonna deny that politics creates a lot of double standards and hypocrisy just to get votes, but that doesn't mean a party will just accept a policy that they are totally against in order to win. A lot of GOPers are against pot whether you're for or against its legalization.

I see them abandoning the least heart-felt issue(s) they have and/or abandoning the issues they know are lost causes. I don't think marijuana is a hot enough issue for them to accept legalization to save their skins



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
And it dawned on me: they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left, push it, and build a social movement around it as has been done with same-sex marriage.

I agree they should and one thing the GOP does much better that the p*ssy democrats is that they move the polls where the dems chase them.

Two points.
1) Republicans almost always side with corporate interests and the private prison industry is very powerful and will continue to lobby for DA's that will throw people in jail for pot possession who have no business going to jail.

Did you hear the story of the man in San Diego that was threatened with 13 years in jail for chalking the sidewalk of a few Bank of America branches. This prison lobby is behind asinine charges like this, thankfully he got off.

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/loc...m-case-at-bank-of-america-branches

2) I am not sure the support of legalizing pot is on there on the right because those days of them keeping the government out you life as much as possible are long gone. Today's GOP wants the government out of their wallet but if up to them still would dictate who can marry and they are passing even more crazy abortion bills each week at the state level it seems.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
Democrats won't touch it (and haven't thus far) because they don't want to be seen as soft on crime.

In DC there is no way that any law regarding the legalization of pot is going to pass and I would argue it is the republicans that would stop it for the reason I mentioned above. States (even centrist ones like Colorado) are legalizing it themselves and you will see more of them doing this in the coming years. However this is moot when federal law trumps state law and ignores the state law.

Look what happens in California, medicinal dispensaries get raided all the time.

If the GOP wants to gain votes power it has to become more libertarian. Which they are when it comes to money, however their lack of will to invest in anything such as a jobs program or infrastructure hurts them but makes sense simplifying regulations and the tax code are rational. They also need to stop trying to legislate women's rights and attacking immigrants (illegal or not), I know there are a lot of Republicans who believe a good chunk of what I just said and the biggest thing they can do is say is these extremist tea partiers are not representative of the GOP.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
No. Because the GOP is guided by (in the main) rich white guys who think it's entirely defensible to get whacked on Jim Beam, but taking a spliff is immoral. Because it's a drug, unlike Jim Beam.

Add those in to the Prison lobby.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 12):
Impossible. Obama is in charge and we will have 8 years of Hillary as well....

If the GOP runs a sensible person that runs on the points I mentioned above and doesn't run Ted Cruz or someone like him, then they have a shot. I would think someone like Bloomberg (without the soda limiting nonsense) or Rubio who sees the benefit to immigration. The answer is not going further to the right but have a good centre right option.

Saying all that politics has been become a game of extreme partisanship and that isn't just on the US side of the 49th parallel, it happens up here too. Many voters believe that not wanting to compromise and come of with a collective solution is a sign of weakness, to me this is huge stupidity and would not be tolerated in the business world or in a relationship.

I say lock them all of the capital and not let them out until a deal is reached.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 18):
The GOP could also gain a lot of votes if they started supporting gay marriage, abortion, etc. I'm not gonna deny that politics creates a lot of double standards and hypocrisy just to get votes, but that doesn't mean a party will just accept a policy that they are totally against in order to win. A lot of GOPers are against pot whether you're for or against its legalization.

I think ultimately that the GOP has not lost enough elections to make any meaningful changes, maybe looking at successful right wing parties in other countries to compare themselves to, or just ask people not affiliated to them what they think !

If they lose the white house next time, then things will probably change.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2715 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 15):
Keep in mind, 11 million new illegals/criminals have been awarded US Citizenship last week

Not yet. The Senate passed the bill, the House isn't going to pass it as is (which will help the Democrats in 2014 and 2016) and it will be years before these people become voters.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
As to 2016, Democrats have a tough situation especially as to keeping the President's seat.

The biggest challenge the Democrats have is the difficulty in a party retaining power after 8 years. Politicians tend to become arrogant when they are in office for a long time. (Tea Party politicians tend to be arrogant from Day One.)

Bush I had the opportunity of being re-elected, but the level of arrogance in his Administration was a real turnoff for many. Ironic as Bush himself was far from an arrogant himself.n It was the John Sanunu attitude that seemed to be taken over that got me to vote fro a Democrat for the first time in my life.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
I don't think Hillary Clinton is the answer either, she has too much of a record, too connected to President Obama and her husband with their baggage.

Her record includes being SecState and doing a pretty good job of cleaning up the mess our reputation was in after Bush & Cheney.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
Still the Republicans have a serious problem as well for the office of the President, they too need a moderate but also have a problem with primary voters who are dominated by radical right-Tea Party group.

That is the scary part for the GOP. Moderate republicans who could attract Independent & Democrats will be destroyed in the primaries.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
in 2008, McCain screwed himself with Palin as VP

That is the understatement of the thread.

Looking back Palin did deliver a great First Impression. Her Convention speech was outstanding. Then she was asked challenging questions - like "what do you read". She lost it all when she started talking about Russia - and Saturday Night Live delivered one of the best political skits ever.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
Not more Bushs either, 2 were enough.

It's sad, but both Bush I and Bush II had their reputations ruined by people in their Administrations. Sanunu & Friends for Bush I and then Cheney & Rummy for Bush II. If W had been able to get Colin Powell to be his VP then the world would have been a different place - and Jeb would have a real opportunity.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
The possible candidates from Christie

Christi has taken the first major step for running and that was his surgery in February. I wish him well with it and believe that if he achieves his goals weight wise then he will have demonstrated the self control a lot of us are looking for in him.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
TX's Perry

Perry recalling the Legislature for the abortion bill pretty well gives his chances in the general election an abortion itself.


Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
Hillary will run and she will win. (unfortunately)



Don't know about that. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't stand behind a very good Democrat who has a good chance of winning and take the VP slot.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
In fact, she may even pick up a few Romney voters of 2012.

Bill Clinton can probably pick up more. His 2012 Convention speech was outstanding. If the GOP puts a Tea Party type then look for Slick WIllie to shred the guy to pieces.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
electing the first female President is too important for a lot of voters so logic again will be out the door.

I believe that the the voters are going to be far more interested in the economy, being able to get health care, knowing their children and grandkids aren't going to be screwed on Social Security & Medicare. Basic, simple stuff like that.

That means the GOP needs to stop holding votes to end Health Care Reform every few months and they need to understand that continual flapping around on abortion will abort their candidates candidacy in it's infancy. Give those old dogs a rest.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
America is headed towards a 1 party system (Democratic) and the fall of the country will be on their watch.

Actually, with the propaganda coming from the right-wing media and so many millions believing it AND the redistricting going on all over the nation AND voter suppression, the right is assured this will be the "Christian" answer to Iran.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2670 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
and unless I'm mistaken the religions of the book aren't big fans of drugs either

Therein lies the problem for the GOP to not take up this issue. No specific verse in the Bible even addresses drugs. The closest thing, perhaps, is 1 Corinthians 6:19 :

Quote:
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,

So technically they can argue both ways:
1. They can say that The Bible does prohibit drugs, but just like gay marriage, there's no direct verse about it*.
2. They can say that The Bible does NOT prohibit drugs, but then that opens the door for other things...like gay marriage.

In fact, there's more sense to prohibit alcohol consumption since more verses appeal to that...I don't see the GOP arguing against drinking alcohol.   

To put a better question, one has to ask: which is the GOP trying to uphold: the US Constitution and its laws, or the Bible and its laws?

*(Off topic, but to make a point) I place an asterisk because many usually cherrypick the verses and what to say or not. Many say that the Old Testament is no longer valid and it's the New one that's current...but then when you bring about many other things explicitly forbidden in the New Testament, they don't want to follow through. Or when you say that Jesus never mentioned anything about drugs/alcohol/homosexuality, they say that the Bible said so (and usually quote Leviticus)...so one has to wonder, is the whole Bible relevant? Which verses of it are relevant?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2662 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Don't know about that. I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't stand behind a very good Democrat who has a good chance of winning and take the VP slot.

Hillary won't play 2nd fiddle to anyone.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Bill Clinton can probably pick up more. His 2012 Convention speech was outstanding. If the GOP puts a Tea Party type then look for Slick WIllie to shred the guy to pieces.

Ummm, Bill Clinton can't run again.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
Actually, with the propaganda coming from the right-wing media

  
What propaganda? What right-wing media?
I'm just giving my own observation. I'd love to be proven wrong on this topic. Only time will tell. Let's revisit this thread come November 2016.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
Ted Cruz

He was born in Canada.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
I would think someone like Bloomberg

Oh HELL no!
I'd rather put Dubya back in office than Bloomberg and I still consider Dubya to be one of the worst Presidents ever.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 19):
Saying all that politics has been become a game of extreme partisanship and that isn't just on the US side of the 49th parallel, it happens up here too. Many voters believe that not wanting to compromise and come of with a collective solution is a sign of weakness, to me this is huge stupidity and would not be tolerated in the business world or in a relationship.

Can we please borrow Stephen Harper to be our President?   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2731 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
build a social movement

No. Social issues are what is killing the GOP.

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
potential tax revenue sourcing and reduction in street crime

NOW you're talking! The Republicans need to swing back to fiscal conservatism.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The way for Republicans to win in 2016 would be to introduce a legislation that sentences Hillary Clinton a lifetime in prison, making her ineligible for candidacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_repression

Quoting seb146 (Reply 22):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
America is headed towards a 1 party system (Democratic) and the fall of the country will be on their watch.

Actually, with the propaganda coming from the right-wing media and so many millions believing it AND the redistricting going on all over the nation AND voter suppression, the right is assured this will be the "Christian" answer to Iran.

Both of you settle down. Neither party is going anywhere.

Superfly: There will always be uneducated voters who vote for the candidate they think will give them "handouts", but there are enough educated voters that realize that a healthy economy is the best social program. This transcends both major parties.

seb146: Religious affiliation, as a whole, is on the decrease in North America. I'm not sure what you're worried about. The "Christian Right" exists, but they aren't going to be much of a threat in the coming elections.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
Can we please borrow Stephen Harper to be our President?

To borrow your own phrase: "Oh HELL no!"

We need him to make sure Trudeau doesn't get elected in 2015.   



Flying refined.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2709 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
There will always be uneducated voters who vote for the candidate they think will give them "handouts", but there are enough educated voters that realize that a healthy economy is the best social program.

You should see the folks showing up to the polls in 2008. The uneducated voters maybe a minority but large enough to tip the election in their favor.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
To borrow your own phrase: "Oh HELL no!"

We need him to make sure Trudeau doesn't get elected in 2015.

I'd like to see Neil Peart make a run for it. Should Rush decide to retire from recording and touring, he'd be a great leader.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwJLGEDnFfs



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Quoting ltbewr (Reply 16):
I don't think Hillary Clinton is the answer either, she has too much of a record, too connected to President Obama and her husband with their baggage.

Her record includes being SecState and doing a pretty good job of cleaning up the mess our reputation was in after Bush & Cheney.

When Newt Gingrich publicly comments in the campain that Hillary Clinton is the smartest, hardest working person in Washington DC - focused on serving the needs of her nation regardless of party politics - you know she must be something special.

However, she will be too old in 2016. And worse, she LOOKS old and tired. She won't get the votes in the primaries if any organized candidate opposes her.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
The biggest challenge the Democrats have is the difficulty in a party retaining power after 8 years.

After 8 years, the voters frequently decide - anybody but a _____ - is a better option.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
Religious affiliation, as a whole, is on the decrease in North America. I'm not sure what you're worried about. The "Christian Right" exists, but they aren't going to be much of a threat in the coming elections.

While religious affiliation may be decreasing - so is voter focus. The non-religious population is largely apathetic and doesn't vote in large percentages as the religious population. The total numbers are actually showing more power at the ballot box for the religious voters because they actually vote.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
You should see the folks showing up to the polls in 2008. The uneducated voters maybe a minority but large enough to tip the election in their favor.

The Republicans had the election won - until they decided to not focus on the economy and on Bengahzi. That left thousands of normal Republican voters sitting at home, not bothering to go vote.

Has Fox News not betrayed the Republicans economy message and turned off so many voters - Romeny would be President today.

[Edited 2013-07-08 06:23:34]

User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2638 times:

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 1):
No. Because the GOP is guided by (in the main) rich white guys who think it's

And the DNC is not guided and been run by rich white guys?



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
The uneducated voters maybe a minority but large enough to tip the election in their favor.

"Obama is a socialist! Obama is a Muslim! Obama was born in Kenya! Obama caused....!" Like that? Even those lies didn't keep people from voting for him.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):
until they decided to not focus on the economy and on Bengahzi. That left thousands of normal Republican voters sitting at home, not bothering to go vote.

Actually, if you look at raw numbers, a majority of Americans who voted in 2012 (I think that's what you were talking about when you responded to a post about the 2008 election) actually voted Democrat. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-democrats-won-majority-2012-popu/



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 29):
Actually, if you look at raw numbers, a majority of Americans who voted in 2012 (I think that's what you were talking about when you responded to a post about the 2008 election) actually voted Democrat. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...popu/

Untrue. Obama ONLY won due to voter fraud, and that is not my opinion but an ABSOLUTE FACT. He should be impeached IMMEDIATELY, and ALL Democratic senators should also be removed from office and imprisoned for life.

[Edited 2013-07-08 09:37:24]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2592 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 30):
He should be impeached IMMEDIATELY, and ALL Democratic senators should also be removed from office and imprisoned for life.

      I should have known better than to have taken a swig of coffee before opening this thread!

You know, all the Democrats need to do to keep winning offices is just sit by quietly while the GOP holds its gabfests, if this is the kind of stuff that's going to continue to come from the party faithful. It just gives elections away.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6584 posts, RR: 24
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2583 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
And it dawned on me: they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left, push it, and build a social movement around it as has been done with same-sex marriage.

While it might attract some younger and libertarian voters to the GOP, it would also alienate some of the GOP's base. The religious right doesn't like marijuana and doesn't want it legalized. It's not a winning issue for the GOP.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 23):
In fact, there's more sense to prohibit alcohol consumption since more verses appeal to that...I don't see the GOP arguing against drinking alcohol.

The issue that the religious right has with marijuana is the fear that it undermines religion. Traditional religious right thinking says that when you are worried about problems in life and seek answers, you should seek religion. However, with marijuana, why worry about problems in life...just light up a joint and your worries fade away (temporarily at least).


User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
You should see the folks showing up to the polls in 2008. The uneducated voters maybe a minority but large enough to tip the election in their favor.

I see that as a one-time phenomenon. Remember all those videos of low-income individuals going on about "Obama's gonna get me a free cell phone!", among other things? Well, he obviously didn't give everyone free cell phones, or many of the other freebies they thought they were getting for whatever reason, so I would assume they would have been disillusioned to a degree, hence the one-ff occurrence. It's been discussed so much on here that Obama didn't win in 2012 so much as Romney lost, and I feel that it's because of the educated voters moving away from him.   

Quoting Superfly (Reply 26):
I'd like to see Neil Peart make a run for it. Should Rush decide to retire from recording and touring, he'd be a great leader.

That's an interesting proposal that I've never given any thought. There's no doubt Neil Peart is a good Canadian, but I would have to see him publish his platform and engage in a 5-party debate before I would take his candidacy seriously. I seem to recall from my very limited knowledge of his political affiliations that he has had rather inconsistent political views over the years (certainly since the time that video was recorded - 1993).

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):
The non-religious population is largely apathetic and doesn't vote in large percentages as the religious population. The total numbers are actually showing more power at the ballot box for the religious voters because they actually vote.



That's easily explained away by age, and actually supports my original point. As you no doubt saw in Doc's thread regarding the "nones", the number of atheist persons in the US are quite heavily skewed to the younger adults (18-25). This age group has historically always had a weak turnout at the polls, while the older age groups (35+) have always had a very strong showing. Given that, it's pretty fair to say that as this less-religious generation gets older, there will be far more non-religious voters. It will take a couple more elections before we see a drastic shift, but it will happen in a decade or so.

Quoting seb146 (Reply 29):
"Obama is a socialist! Obama is a Muslim! Obama was born in Kenya! Obama caused....!" Like that? Even those lies didn't keep people from voting for him.

That's another thing the Republican Party needs to contend with: those on the very far right, and I'm not talking about the Tea Party. I'm talking about those that are so fanatical that they actually harm their cause. They are to their party what the Westboro Baptist Church is to Christianity.

The GOP needs to stop allowing these folks to get in the limelight under the "Republican" guise and disassociate with them. When you get these old, white dudes screaming about Obama being a Muslim, Kenyan, Communist, whatever...even the uneducated, low-income voters realize how crazy it is and it gives them a sour perception of the right-wing party, and thus solidifying their vote for "the guys who aren't those crazy, white dudes".

Of course these types exist within the Democratic Party as well, but since they've been winning elections recently, it's not as pressing an issue for them at present.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 30):
Untrue. Obama ONLY won due to voter fraud, and that is not my opinion but an ABSOLUTE FACT. He should be impeached IMMEDIATELY, and ALL Democratic senators should also be removed from office and imprisoned for life.

You're always good for a few laughs, 1337Delta764. But since you brought it up, could you kindly post credible links to a source? 'Cause, ya know, "ABSOLUTE FACTS" usually have sources...

And again, what's with the whole imprisoning Democrats thing? You say it in just about every thread, but you're never able to provide legal grounding for any of your statements.



Flying refined.
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6447 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2580 times:

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
And again, what's with the whole imprisoning Democrats thing? You say it in just about every thread, but you're never able to provide legal grounding for any of your statements.

Because they have been rigging every single recent election to give their party an unfair advantage. Send them to prison and it will give the Republican Party a fair advantage.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 35, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2570 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 34):
Send them to prison and it will give the Republican Party a fair advantage.

GOP Voter Fraud Accusations Suddenly Blowing Up In Their Faces

Quote:
Republican officials, who have used hysteria about alleged voter fraud as an excuse to support measures that disproportionately block Democratic voters, are furiously trying to distance themselves from a growing number of GOP voter registration drives that either submitted false applications or threw away authentic ones.

The incidents might have been overlooked if not for the GOP's clamorous campaign to restrict registration drives, purge voter rolls, roll back early voting, and pass voter ID laws that opponents point out have the effect of depressing the vote among minorities, the poor and other generally Democratic constituencies.


Oh dear! GOP fraudsters!



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineWestJet747 From Canada, joined Aug 2011, 1830 posts, RR: 10
Reply 36, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2561 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 34):
Because they have been rigging every single recent election to give their party an unfair advantage. Send them to prison and it will give the Republican Party a fair advantage.

Apparently you didn't see the links I posted earlier. Here's a refresher:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_repression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preventive_repression

Trust me, they're short reads, it won't take you very long at all. Might do you some good to realize what you're advocating.

Also, you conveniently ignored my request for credible sources on your accusations. The offer remains on the table.



Flying refined.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 37, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2554 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):
The Republicans had the election won - until they decided to not focus on the economy and on Bengahzi. That left thousands of normal Republican voters sitting at home, not bothering to go vote.

You have a right to your opinion but not a single poll backs up your claim. Obama had a small lead throughout most of the year. Romney didn't get any traction until after the first debate where he had to school Barack on how the economy works. Even then, Romney never had the election "won" as you put it. The only two Republican candidates that screwed themselves was Senate candidates Todd Aiken and that clown in Indiana.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
I see that as a one-time phenomenon. Remember all those videos of low-income individuals going on about "Obama's gonna get me a free cell phone!", among other things? Well, he obviously didn't give everyone free cell phones, or many of the other freebies they thought they were getting for whatever reason, so I would assume they would have been disillusioned to a degree, hence the one-ff occurrence.

Two-time phenomenon but you are correct. In fact, the infamous Obamaphone lady no longer supports Obama. The sad thing is that she said she'll never vote for him again.  Wow!
Poor thing, she doesn't even realize that he's already won his 2nd term and won't be on a ballot again.


Here is a heart-warming interview where Tea Partier Alex Jones reached out to Obamaphone lady and had dialogue. The Obamaphone lady has seen the light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8nyyOVDq3I

There has always been a derelict under-class in our society but they never voted. The demographic is getting larger and they're voting now. I'm all in favor of people exercising their right to vote. My concern is their motivation that is driving them to the polls. If they're motivated by a candidate that is offering new opportunities to them to better their lives and the candidate has a proven track record of creating jobs then that is wonderful. Now if they're motivation to go to the polls is to get free phones and free money then I have a problem with that.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 33):
That's an interesting proposal that I've never given any thought. There's no doubt Neil Peart is a good Canadian, but I would have to see him publish his platform and engage in a 5-party debate before I would take his candidacy seriously. I seem to recall from my very limited knowledge of his political affiliations that he has had rather inconsistent political views over the years (certainly since the time that video was recorded - 1993).

The man is brilliant and would be a incredible statesman for your country. He has written many books. Since 1993, he lost his family within a span of 11 months. His 19 year old daughter and only child was killed in a car accident and 11 months later lost his wife to cancer. The man has been through a lot and so I'm sure that would alter one's views on life quite a bit.

[Edited 2013-07-08 11:00:13]


Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineConfuscius From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 3829 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2528 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
How The GOP Could Gain Votes 

Perhaps by subtraction through voter suppression? If the GOP can repeal the 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments that will take care of the Democratic party base.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 17):
America is headed towards a 1 party system

It's about time! President Hillary Clinton will be succeeded by former governor and current senator Gavin Newsom, who in turn will be succeeded by Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky...until such time Malia Obama is eligible to be president.   

The Party will reprogram former Democratic voters (including expats) who have lost their soul and strayed into the abyss. And for non-party voters, they shall be placed into reeducation camps for rehabilitation back to sanity.   

[Edited 2013-07-08 11:10:57]


Ain't I a stinker?
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 39, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2526 times:

Quoting Confuscius (Reply 38):
It's about time! President Hillary Clinton will be succeeded by former governor and current senator Gavin Newsom, who in turn will be succeeded by Chelsea Clinton-Mezvinsky...until such time Malia Obama is eligible to be president.

Won't be Gavin Newsome. Too many close associations with me in San Francisco.  
They're already talking about Cory Booker as Hilary's VP and he'll be next in line.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinecedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8060 posts, RR: 54
Reply 40, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2502 times:

It will take more than just doing the right thing on one single issue to get people voting Republican again. I am a big supporter of legalising pot but I wouldn't vote for them if they remain on the wrong side when it comes to invading foreign countries, hurting womens' rights, being racist or being in favour of tax cuts for the rich.

Only when they do the right thing on all these issues will they win meaningful elections. They only won the Congress because of jerrymandering - they lost the popular vote there too.

Funny that they're being killed off by evolution, something they don't even believe in.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
Hillary won't play 2nd fiddle to anyone.

She did asFirst Lady and then Sec State. She may well be happy as VP as long as she is involved in the Oval Office. No way would she play the bucket of warm spit.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
Ummm, Bill Clinton can't run again.

I know that, just as I know that he can bring in a mountain of campaign contributions and a lot of voters. He's still a massive force in US politics and can deliver a speech like he did at the 2012 Convention,

Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
He was born in Canada.

That's the best news I've had today - he can never be president.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
The Republicans need to swing back to fiscal conservatism.

They need to swing back to financial responsibility. Going to war on the credit card while holding onto those unaffordable tax cuts was a disaster. A real Guns & Butter & Cake political program.

Quoting WestJet747 (Reply 25):
There will always be uneducated voters who vote for the candidate they think will give them "handouts"

And then there are the well educated corporate elite (and their lobbyists) who pour a lot of money into the system because they KNOW it will get them hand outs.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):
However, she will be too old in 2016.

And how old was Reagan when he ran the first time?

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 30):
Untrue. Obama ONLY won due to voter fraud, and that is not my opinion but an ABSOLUTE FACT. He should be impeached IMMEDIATELY, and ALL Democratic senators should also be removed from office and imprisoned for life.

        


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 42, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2464 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 30):
Untrue. Obama ONLY won due to voter fraud, and that is not my opinion but an ABSOLUTE FACT. He should be impeached IMMEDIATELY, and ALL Democratic senators should also be removed from office and imprisoned for life.

Sigh... can you at least provide links to your sources? No matter what your position, you need to back up what you are saying. Otherwise no one can taking your view seriously (and that's not being biased either, that's just simple fact checking)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 43, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2439 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
And how old was Reagan when he ran the first time?

He was 65.

He was 69 years, 11 months and 19 days old when he took the oath of office.

Hillary will be 68 during most of the 2016 campaign - she will be 69 just before the election.

If elected, she would take the office at the age of 69 years, 2 months and 25 days.

Reagan was a very good actor, and knew and used a lot of things he learned in the profession to keep his appearance and impression to the voters of a 'youthful' 69 years of age.

Hillary simply isn't as good at hair and makeup - she look OLD and TIRED - most of the time.


User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 44, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2432 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
Quoting Superfly (Reply 24):
He was born in Canada.

That's the best news I've had today - he can never be president.

As much as I like this statement, his mother was born and raised in Delaware so technically he's a McCain case (born outside the US to at least one US parent). However, as much as the GOP tried with Obama and the birther conspiracy, this one is actually true and ergo, the GOP will have to shut its trap if Cruz becomes the nominee and birther conspiracies come about him.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 43):
Hillary simply isn't as good at hair and makeup - she look OLD and TIRED - most of the time.

A hair makeover can do wonders actually. When she campaigned with short hair back in 2008 she looked more energized than when she left the State Department. The hairstyle was what made the difference.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2129 posts, RR: 1
Reply 45, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 44):
As much as I like this statement, his mother was born and raised in Delaware so technically he's a McCain case (born outside the US to at least one US parent).

McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in a US base though, so the argument could be made that he is still a "natural born" citizen (and even then controversy still surrounded him regarding that issue). It is harder to argue that for someone born in Canada.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 46, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2404 times:

Didn't the House pass a bill to say that he was born on US territory ? Can't happen with Canada I would think/hope.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 47, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 43):
Hillary simply isn't as good at hair and makeup - she look OLD and TIRED - most of the time.

The gays are going to get on that and she will look better than Katy Perry in her "Friday Night" video LOL



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 48, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
She did asFirst Lady and then Sec State.

Like she was going to stop Bill from running back in 1992?
You think she had a chance as a wife of a governor of a small southern state at the Presidency? Hillary got in to politics on the back of her husband and the election of him in 1992 was only the beginning and set the stage for her to get in to politics.
The Secretary of State job got her out of the Senate but is a more important role than VP.
She has been more visible than vice-President Chains....



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3354 posts, RR: 9
Reply 49, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 27):
The Republicans had the election won - until they decided to not focus on the economy and on Bengahzi. That left thousands of normal Republican voters sitting at home, not bothering to go vote.

I don't know if they ever had it won but it certainly would have been a lot closer had they focused on the economy like Republicans of the past had, which means being pro-business but not as far as being puppets to corporate interests.

If they has stuck to the message of simplifying regulations and the tax code to make things transparent for small businesses and even corporations, it would have improved their chances. The problem with that is it always remains a talking point as big business has an interest in a complicated tax code because they benefit from it.

The problem with the GOP is that they go too far to the right when it comes to things like regulations where they were proposing things like abolishing the EPA. If you polled Americans on this they might favour simple and transparent regulations regarding something like the internment but not destroying the organization all together. That is just an example.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 32):
While it might attract some younger and libertarian voters to the GOP, it would also alienate some of the GOP's base. The religious right doesn't like marijuana and doesn't want it legalized. It's not a winning issue for the GOP.

It can be because you can't win an election on your base alone and the religious right is the reason that they have lost 3 of the last 4 major elections. People in the centre are driven away by this kind of nonsense that GOP run state legislatures are passing and lets also note that there are more non-believers in the US that there are blacks. All those non-believers are liberal but I bet most of them will not vote for the GOP if they are going to continue be run by the religious right.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 50, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2318 times:

Besides, the GOP and and Dems have a great advantage in the strictly dual party system the US has. The dems just need to be to the left of the GOP, and inversely. There is no need to ponder at all to the leftists or the rightists, who will they vote for if they don't like the mainstream candidate of their camp ?

We saw with the Romney choice that the GOP electorate ended up seeing this and choosing a "reasonable" candidate, but the early primaries had killed his potential momentum by then.

Hasn't anybody proposed to make the primaries a national event instead of state by state ? Of course this would probably lead to making the election itself national, getting rid of the electoral college.

That's how François Hollande won the French election in 2012, the left made a two turns primary similar to the real election, 6 candidates in the first run, from very socialist to social democrat, even a social liberal, a run-off between 2, and the "most electable" and less socialist won in the end, and went to defeat incumbent Sarkozy.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 51, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2306 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 50):
Hasn't anybody proposed to make the primaries a national event instead of state by state ?

That would be a terrible idea. The state by state process gives the smaller, lesser known candidate an opportunity to get his/her message out and connect with voters face to face. To have a national primary would give the nominations to the wealthiest candidate and the hand-picked candidate of party insiders.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 50):
That's how François Hollande won the French election in 2012

...and we don't want that at all!   



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 52, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2286 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 50):
Hasn't anybody proposed to make the primaries a national event instead of state by state ?
Quoting Superfly (Reply 51):
he state by state process gives the smaller, lesser known candidate an opportunity to get his/her message out and connect with voters face to face.

To support Superfly's position - the state primaries are also where we find major funded candidates, like my dear governor Rick Perry, are babbling incompent fools.

The state primary system is essential with a two party system.

That said - there is a major difference between the Republican Party primary system and the Democratic Party primary system.

In the Democratic Party if candidate 1 gets 40% of the primary votes in a state, candidate 2 gets 30%, candidate 3 gets 10% and the other candidates split the remaining 20% - most states will give 40% of their delegate votes to candidate 1, 30% to candidate 2, and depending upon specific state rules either 10% to candidate 3 with 10% uncommitted, or 20% uncommitted. (Caveat - there might be some minor differences in the exact numbers - but the principle of splitting the delegates is correct)

In the Republican Party - if candidate 1 gets 40% of the vote and candidate 2 gets 35% and other candidates get the remaining 25% - candidate 1 gets 100% of the state delegates.

The Republican Party system ensures the primary fight will not drag past the Super Tuesday elections in early November. The Republican Party system also makes the early small state caucuses and primaries not real significant - making the big state primaries more important for the candidates to do well.

The Democratic Party system can drag the fight for a nominee out into May or even early June as we saw in 2008. It makes the small states more important - and makes primaries in Republican states very important.

The presumption among the Democratic Party leaders is that the longer the primary fight - the more free publicity for the eventual candidate.

The presumption among the Republican Party leaders is that getting the nominee 'named' early allows long for him to focus his message, raise funds and prepare for the general election. It avoids the distraction of other candidates during the buildup to the convention.


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 53, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 51):
...and we don't want that at all!

That's just an example to show how a party that hadn't won the presidency since 1988 (!) did it in 2012.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 51):
That would be a terrible idea. The state by state process gives the smaller, lesser known candidate an opportunity to get his/her message out and connect with voters face to face. To have a national primary would give the nominations to the wealthiest candidate and the hand-picked candidate of party insiders.

That's thanks to the debates, there would still be several primary debates of course.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 54, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2258 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 45):
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone in a US base though

He was born outside of the US because his father was serving at a military base outside the US. Regardless of his Dad's military status, his parents were US Citizens so there should not be an issue.

Same with Obama. His mother was a US Citizen and he therefore a US Citizen. Same with Cruz if his mother was a US citizen when he was born.

Quoting Polot (Reply 45):
It is harder to argue that for someone born in Canada.

Not really, a parent's citizenship establishes the citizenship of the baby. At times, when both parents have different citizenships the kids have dual citizenship. Just like my son and daughter.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):
Hillary got in to politics on the back of her husband and the election of him in 1992 was only the beginning and set the stage for her to get in to politics.

Hillary was involved in politics, right along with her husband. Remember that Wild Bill was Governor multiple times.

Hillary did take some hits when she said she was not the time to sit around the house baking cookies. Except during that period of time when Monica put stress on the marriage Hillary would have been a strong political partner during Clinton's Presidency.

Quoting Superfly (Reply 48):
The Secretary of State job got her out of the Senate but is a more important role than VP.

I believe that the VP job depends on agreements made when the VP position is initially discussed. Ike kept Nixon out of the loop, but I felt that Cheney was acting like the CEO with W being President. I believe that Biden has been doing a very good job and demonstrating how successful someone in the job can be.

Since Hillary has demonstrated performance as SecState she wouldn't accept a weak VP position.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 55, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 2252 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Not really, a parent's citizenship establishes the citizenship of the baby. At times, when both parents have different citizenships the kids have dual citizenship.


I certainly agree.

Ted Cruz is clearly a 'natural born citizen'.

His citizenship is derived from his mother, just like President Obama. Just like the President, his father was not a US citizen. Though I doubt he would have dual citizenship with Cuba.

The fact that Cruz was born in Canada, and Obama born in Hawaii doesn't matter.

That said - I don't like Cruz as a politician, and opportunist whose 'beliefs' shift with the current political wind. Didn't vote for him either.


User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2129 posts, RR: 1
Reply 56, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2244 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Not really, a parent's citizenship establishes the citizenship of the baby. At times, when both parents have different citizenships the kids have dual citizenship. Just like my son and daughter.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 55):

His citizenship is derived from his mother, just like President Obama. Just like the President, his father was not a US citizen. Though I doubt he would have dual citizenship with Cuba.

The fact that Cruz was born in Canada, and Obama born in Hawaii doesn't matter.

There is no question about citizenship, it is whether he is a "natural born" citizen or not. Traditionally that has been interpreted to mean being born in the US or on US soil. That is of course why birthers argue that Obama was born in Kenya. Nobody denies that he is a US citizen, but they argue that because he was apparently born in Kenya he is not a natural born citizen and therefore not was not actually eligible for the presidency.

For someone like Cruz, who was born to a US parent but clearly not born on US soil or anything that could be interpreted as such (i.e. at a US base or embassy) , to run would probably require a more official definition of "natural born" citizen as written in the Constitution than the currently vague requirement. The only time "natural born" citizen is mentioned in the Constitution is in regards to the presidency prerequisites, and its intended meaning is never explained.

[Edited 2013-07-09 17:12:38]

User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 57, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 52):
the state primaries are also where we find major funded candidates, like my dear governor Rick Perry, are babbling incompent fools.

...and that is the point. State by state primaries weed out the idiots early on. Yet it also gives other candidates a chance instead of the Washington DC insiders deciding who the nominee is. I'm content with the state by state primary process. Keep in mind, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George McGovern and Barry Goldwater were not early primary favorites. Yet they went on to win their party's nomination. Some even won the Presidency. Some times voters go along with the party insider favorite thinking they'll win in the general which isn't always the case. Walter Mondale, Michale Dukakis, Bob Dole, Mitt Romney, John McCain and John Kerry were all party establishment favorites but lost in the general.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 52):
The state primary system is essential with a two party system.

Well of course. The minor parties hardly ever hold primaries but they are well within their right to do so.





Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
He was born outside of the US because his father was serving at a military base outside the US. Regardless of his Dad's military status, his parents were US Citizens so there should not be an issue.

True and John McCain's loyalty to the United States is solid and his been tested in ways more people wouldn't be able to handle.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Hillary was involved in politics, right along with her husband.

Yes but you implied that she had a chance at winning national office 20 years ago which is inaccurate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 54):
Since Hillary has demonstrated performance as SecState she wouldn't accept a weak VP position.

Haha! You're funny!  
The truth is that her ego wouldn't let her let her take a VP slot.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 55):
The fact that Cruz was born in Canada, and Obama born in Hawaii doesn't matter.

  
Hawaii is a state. Canada is not.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 58, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2206 times:

Quoting Aaron747 (Thread starter):
they need to steal the marijuana issue from the left, push it, and build a social movement around it as has been done with same-sex marriage.

If they do that, then they clear the way for the Democrats to match. This is honestly an issue that will require a small critical mass.

Second, the big barrier, IMHO, to relaxing marijuana laws is the industrial interest in maintaining the War on Drugs. The DEA owns (and/or leases) boats, choppers, planes, a massive fleet of road vehicles of various sizes, weapons up the wazoo, and lots of fancy sensing equipment like IR cameras and portable mass spectrometers. Those contractors will jealously guard the War on Drugs.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 59, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 57):
John McCain's loyalty to the United States is solid and his been tested in ways more people wouldn't be able to handle.

I find it interesting that some of the right-wing pundits scream about how Obama is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood and fiercely supports the Muslim Brotherhood yet, has done NOTHING while Egypt has been taken over by the military and Morsei (sp) has been ousted. If Obama were so fierce an ally of Muslim Brotherhood, he, as Commander In Chief, would have ordered troops into Egypt to restore Morsei (sp) as leader. Yet, he says "let them work it out on their own".

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 58):
Those contractors will jealously guard the War on Drugs.

That is such a great point. That is why we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan and patrol the southern border even with the low/zero/negative immigration flow from the south as well.

BTW, when the GOP says we are a Christian nation, exactly what sect of Christianity are we?



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 60, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2164 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 59):
I find it interesting that some of the right-wing pundits scream about how Obama is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood and fiercely supports the Muslim Brotherhood yet, has done NOTHING while Egypt has been taken over by the milit.....

Referring to these 'right-wing pundits'?   
..


 photo egypt-rejects-obama-and-muslim-brotherhood-military-coup-july-03-201314_zps3bd15659.jpg



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 61, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2120 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 56):
Traditionally that has been interpreted to mean being born in the US or on US soil.

Considering that "foreigners" who gain citizenship through the standard process are called "naturalized citizens" as opposed to naturally born citizens.


User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 60):
Referring to these 'right-wing pundits'?

I call BS on the pic. I see similar pics supporting my opinion on many topics but they look doctored. This one does too.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2118 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 56):
For someone like Cruz, who was born to a US parent but clearly not born on US soil or anything that could be interpreted as such (i.e. at a US base or embassy) , to run would probably require a more official definition of "natural born" citizen as written in the Constitution than the currently vague requirement.

"natural born" means citizen at birth. If one parent is a citizen, that will do. Place of birth is irrelevant unless neither parent is a citizen.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7832 posts, RR: 52
Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
I call BS on the pic. I see similar pics supporting my opinion on many topics but they look doctored. This one does too.

I agree, it does look a bit doctored, though I can't say with 100% certainty. It might be that it's kind of a low res pic so the pixels around the text look weird...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2101 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 62):
I call BS on the pic. I see similar pics supporting my opinion on many topics but they look doctored. This one does too.

So much information out there and it is no secret that the people in Egypt that are protesting against Morsi also are against Obama and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
I guess they're a bunch of racist...



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6534 posts, RR: 9
Reply 66, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2081 times:

Well being "against Obama" in Egypt can mean many things. If you don't like the particular policy of the man regarding Egypt that's one thing. It doesn't mean you're against everything he does, or want Mubarak back, or whatever.

The Arab revolutions are something we have trouble grasping as foreigners, and even locals are clearly not all on the same page. What happened in Iran is not a norm, and even there not everybody is happy with the revolution anyway.

Obama has to deal with the cards he gets, just like other people in power, and it's the privilege of the opposition to attack him whatever he does, even when he happens to do things they want, support, and were proposing a couple months before.

This brings us back to the topic, what is the GOP platform currently, for 2014, 2016 ? It's really a strange system you have in the US, with the president and chambers that can be from opposite parties and no way to change that until the next election. In France this situation can happen, but the president has the power to dissolve the assembly (of course when that happens in Egypt, it doesn't end well, but here it works). And regardless, if the assembly is opposed to the president, it's the assembly that decides in the end, except about foreign relations, wars things like that. That's how prime minister Lionel Jospin made the 35h work week, civil pact for same sex couples, and other laws, under right wing president Chirac.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2129 posts, RR: 1
Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2074 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 61):
Considering that "foreigners" who gain citizenship through the standard process are called "naturalized citizens" as opposed to naturally born citizens.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 63):
"natural born" means citizen at birth. If one parent is a citizen, that will do. Place of birth is irrelevant unless neither parent is a citizen.

Again you guys are making judgements on what "natural born" means.

In 1758, for example, in Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" natural born citizen's are defined as:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens" (emphasis mine)

You guys are interpreting that natural born just means citizen since birth, with no importance on where you are born, but there are plenty of people who do think where you are born is important. Considering that the Constitution was created in 1787, The founding fathers were likely influenced by Emmerich de Vattel's book and definition. Which is why I mentioned that for someone like Cruz to run it would probably require the Supreme court to intervene and make a decision. They have never defined the term themselves and as far as I can tell have only used it to refer to those born in the country.


User currently offlinedreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8792 posts, RR: 24
Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2070 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 66):
This brings us back to the topic, what is the GOP platform currently, for 2014, 2016 ? It's really a strange system you have in the US, with the president and chambers that can be from opposite parties and no way to change that until the next election. In France this situation can happen, but the president has the power to dissolve the assembly (of course when that happens in Egypt, it doesn't end well, but here it works).

Here it's the other way around - the Congress can eject the President - although that has never happened yet. The president has to be impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. Two presidents have been impeached (Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998), but the Senate in both cases could not get the 2/3rds needed to remove from office.

However we have had a coup in the US before. At one point our government became so incapable of dealing with issues, state delegations stopped coming to attend Congress, because it was pointless. Then a group of unelected people (in the absence of the elected bozos who couldn't do anything) got together and drafted a new Constitution - the one we supposedly still have today. Those unelected usurpers of power are now revered as The Framers.

The point is that Democracy doesn't always work out. As Churchill said,

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it can been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Speech in the House of Commons (1947-11-11)

He also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

Sometimes you need bunch of committed, well-respected patriots to get together and put forth a constitution that people can stand behind.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 69, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 67):
They have never defined the term themselves and as far as I can tell have only used it to refer to those born in the country.

As far as I know, this goes back to recognizing that who were citizens of the United States was never properly defined by the framers of the Constitution mainly because only state law could define who was born a citizen of the state, and thus, an American.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 56):
Traditionally that has been interpreted to mean being born in the US or on US soil.

No it hasn't traditionally had that meaning.

Quoting Polot (Reply 67):
Considering that the Constitution was created in 1787, The founding fathers were likely influenced by Emmerich de Vattel's book and definition.

Then why in 1790 did the US Congress define citizenship as

Quote:
"the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens".

That is a direct quote from the Naturalization Act of 1790.

The Congress, nor the Courts, have ever seen a need to redefine the phrase "natural born citizen" since that time.

The specific meaning related to the qualifications of a presidential candidate has never been tested in court. Usually, as with some of the lawsuits concerning our current President, the courts have ruled that private citizens have no standing to be able to challenge a candidate's eligibility.

We have had presidential candidates not born in the "United States" before McCain.

Chester A. Arthur was rumored to have been born in Canada. His mother was a US citizen, his father was a non-citizen immigrant from Ireland (naturalized when is son was 14). Arthur's official birthplace is listed as Fairfield, VT - some 15-20 miles from the border with Canada. No substantial proof was provided that his birthplace was in Canada - so the issue never went to court.

Barry Goldwater was definitely not born in a US state. Arizona was a territory at the time of his birth. Challenges based on that were quickly dismissed.

Republican George Romney (father of Mitt Romney) was without a doubt born in Mexico. He was five before coming to the United States. His parents were both US citizens, and Mexico specifically did NOT allow birth-right citizenship at that time. There was no challenge to his eligibility in the 1968 primaries and campaign.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 70):
Barry Goldwater was definitely not born in a US state. Arizona was a territory at the time of his birth. Challenges based on that were quickly dismissed.

IIRC, the argument regarding Goldwater was that neither he nor his parents claimed allegiance to any foreign state at the time of his birth, which was one of the standards looked at over time to determine whether someone was natural born or not.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2028 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 71):
was that neither he nor his parents claimed allegiance to any foreign state

It's been a long time, and my memory isn't perfect - but I think the 'allegiance' discussion related to Romney in the 1968 campaign, not Goldwater in the 1964 campaign.

I remember someone in 64 bringing up Goldwater's non-state birth - and I think it was David Brinkley who started listing all the Presidents who had not been born in what were states at the time.

In 1968, we looked at Romney and his Mexican birth to US citizen parents in my 9th grade Civics class and again in my 10th grade American History class. Both teachers rightly called it a BS issue.

Research was HARD before the internet.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2019 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 72):
It's been a long time, and my memory isn't perfect - but I think the 'allegiance' discussion related to Romney in the 1968 campaign, not Goldwater in the 1964 campaign.

You could be right, I was a few years behind you, so we didn't have those kinds of discussions when Bobby was running for president.  

Why I remember it relating to Goldwater was in reference to something I remember reading in that his citizenship issue was much the same as those born in the District of Columbia. Born in D.C., you had no state certification of citizenship as you were classified as an "inhabitant".



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 65):
it is no secret that the people in Egypt that are protesting against Morsi also are against Obama and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood.

They were fine with Obama sitting back and doing nothing and with he and other presidents meeting with Mubarik over the years but now they are out in droves hating Obama for supporting Muslim Brotherhood? I am just thankful Obama is not a right-winger whos answer to the chaos in Egypt would be to send our military in and start another war we can not afford!



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 75, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
That is the scary part for the GOP. Moderate republicans who could attract Independent & Democrats will be destroyed in the primaries.

That is an understatement. Unless the "hated" establishment takes back control of the primary process there won't be a Republican president for a very long time, if ever. As the post election soul-searching pointed out, the party is 'Too old, too white, too male'. Or as Lindsey Graham stated, “The demographics race we’re losing badly,” “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 76, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1528 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 67):
You guys are interpreting that natural born just means citizen since birth, with no importance on where you are born, but there are plenty of people who do think where you are born is important.

No, there are plenty of people who think that where Mr. Obama was born is important. Not a single one of those very same people cared that Mr. McCain was born in Panama. And he may have been born on a US base, but a US base is not "the US."

Quoting Polot (Reply 67):
Considering that the Constitution was created in 1787, The founding fathers were likely influenced by Emmerich de Vattel's book and definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause

Quote:
The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen.

The weight of the evidence is that you are incorrect and that a natural born citizen is a citizen born in the US or by citizen parent(s) outside the US.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 72):
Research was HARD before the internet.

  

Now, if I may *gasp* return to the original topic, I would suggest that if the GOP came out in favor of MJ legalization, the DNC would very quickly move to match. I think this one of those "you go first" games of chicken, not a seriously held belief by a President who's admitted to smoking a joint (and scuttlebutt is that it was a lot more than one joint).


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 77, posted (1 year 1 week 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 76):
I would suggest that if the GOP came out in favor of MJ legalization

But... it just ain't ever gonna happen coz of the primaries. A prez candidate wouldn't pass the "litmus" test. Interesting that the "godfather" of American Conservatism was quite vocal about legalizing not just MJ but all recreational drugs.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlinejet-lagged From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 872 posts, RR: 0
Reply 78, posted (1 year 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 1320 times:

Methinks the GOP won't go near marijuana legalization.

Why? Because what brings them together is theme of values. As policy makers they are not very good. As politicians they do well. When it comes to making decisions based on the preponderance of facts (global warming, climate change, trickle-down economics, creationism, change in voter demographics, etc. etc) they don't do very well. They do well on playing to emotions and fears, and tend to fall back on dogna which plays well to the GOP voters. Marijuana legalization goes too much against what they have trumpeted for decades, and by and large they'll come to the party later and proclaim their support after so many states have legalized it, that it will be a foregone conclusion.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 79, posted (1 year 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1302 times:

Quoting planemaker (Reply 77):
But... it just ain't ever gonna happen coz of the primaries.

Ron Paul did it.

In the end, it's going to have to come to a point of wealthy donors out-donating the industrial interests that run the drug war.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6584 posts, RR: 24
Reply 80, posted (1 year 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 79):
Ron Paul did it.

And how well did he fare in the Presidential primaries? Not very...despite all the hype he couldn't get a lot of traction.

Not to mention that MJ legalization just isn't that important to most people. For example, I support MJ legalization, but it's not a critical issue to me. It wouldn't swing me to vote Republican, nor would it swing most people. It's a secondary issue.


User currently offlineincitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 4002 posts, RR: 13
Reply 81, posted (1 year 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1227 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 8):
In my opinion, the way for the GOP to gain massive numbers of votes and be virtually unstoppable is to embrace a group with strong values of religion, family, education and other such 'traditional' values.

Hispanics

I thought you were going to mention "Muslims". It is also a group with strong values of religion, family, education and tradition.

One gap between many Hispanics and GOP thinking is that most of Latin America sees government as a savior and provider. The mantra that government is evil only tends to ressonate with Cubans, because, well, of their own government.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 82, posted (1 year 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1125 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 79):
In the end, it's going to have to come to a point of wealthy donors out-donating the industrial interests that run the drug war.

While the drug war/industrial complex has high powered lobbies, they aren't the ones that really make a difference at the primary level where it is the evangelical positions that have held the most sway. Drug legalization is a candidate litmus test that won't pass the evangelicals.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1066 times:

Quoting incitatus (Reply 81):
I thought you were going to mention "Muslims". It is also a group with strong values of religion, family, education and tradition.

Ummm, their religion hates Christians.

Quoting planemaker (Reply 82):
Drug legalization is a candidate litmus test that won't pass the evangelicals.

So much talk about the evangelicals. They are are diminishing force within the GOP. They couldn't even get their guy (Rick Santorum) to win the nomination last year.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineseb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11533 posts, RR: 15
Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1035 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 80):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 79):Ron Paul did it.
And how well did he fare in the Presidential primaries? Not very...despite all the hype he couldn't get a lot of traction.

This shows the power of corporate money over the people. The corporations threw millions at Gingrich and Romney. This is why we need money out of politics.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineSuperfly From Thailand, joined May 2000, 39707 posts, RR: 75
Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1027 times:

Quoting seb146 (Reply 84):
This shows the power of corporate money over the people. The corporations threw millions at Gingrich and Romney. This is why we need money out of politics.

Nope.
Ron Paul was targeting voters that are not registered Republicans, thus couldn't participate in the Republican primary.
Ron Paul probably would have done better in the general election than Romney.
Not much corporate money was thrown at Rick Santorum but he managed to win a lot of primaries due to his backing of the Holy-rollers. In fact, he was 2nd place behind Romney. They were not crazy about Santorum being a Catholic but he didn't have the personal baggage as Newt Gingrich and thus didn't support him - despite your claims.
Also, Gingrich didn't have much corporate support either.

For what it's worth, Newt Gingrich also converted to Catholicism, probably another reason the Holy-rollers didn't support him. Ron Paul was the only Protestant candidate in the race but he was too liberal on a lot of social issues for the Holy-rollers to support him.



Bring back the Concorde
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19416 posts, RR: 58
Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 days ago) and read 991 times:

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 80):
And how well did he fare in the Presidential primaries? Not very...despite all the hype he couldn't get a lot of traction.

It wasn't the marijuana issue that killed him. It was his unwillingness to tow the party line on other social issues. It was also his unwillingness to be a "big government conservative" like the rest of the GOP.

Mr. Paul had too much appeal to both GOP and DNC voters, to be able to win something as partisan as a GOP primary. He really should have run on his own as a third-party candidate.


User currently offlineplanemaker From Tuvalu, joined Aug 2003, 6126 posts, RR: 34
Reply 87, posted (1 year 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 977 times:

Quoting Superfly (Reply 83):
So much talk about the evangelicals. They are are diminishing force within the GOP. They couldn't even get their guy (Rick Santorum) to win the nomination last year.

As pointed out by others, he was a default candidate because he is RC... there was support for his very conservative moral views, not for his religion. Many evangelicals think that the Pope is the anti-Christ.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 86):
Mr. Paul had too much appeal to both GOP and DNC voters, to be able to win something as partisan as a GOP primary. He really should have run on his own as a third-party candidate.

He's basically a libertarian and doesn't fall into either camps so a third-party candidate would be the logical way for him to go... but he'd immediately be on the outside. Even in the GOP primaries he had a hard time getting air time.



Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind. - A. Einstein
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
How The Discussion Forum Rules Could Be Improved posted Thu Oct 12 2000 21:07:54 by EK_A340
Romney, The GOP, And "Obamacare" posted Thu Jul 5 2012 16:19:30 by TecumsehSherman
Why Is Steele Still The Chairman Of The GOP? posted Fri Jul 2 2010 11:41:09 by casinterest
Is The GOP Interested In Fixing Healthcare Part 3 posted Sun Sep 6 2009 13:58:21 by Toulouse
Is The GOP Interested In Fixing Healthcare Part 2 posted Mon Aug 17 2009 16:24:45 by Toulouse
Is The GOP Interested In Fixing Healthcare At All? posted Tue Jul 21 2009 17:21:19 by StasisLAX
What Is The Future Of The GOP? posted Sat Jun 6 2009 12:19:33 by Falcon84
Another Winner From The GOP! Not! posted Wed May 13 2009 20:07:47 by Falcon84
Who Do You Think The Future Of The GOP Is? posted Sun Jan 18 2009 23:26:05 by Usair320
How The States Steal Our Real-estate Investments posted Thu Jul 17 2008 07:38:18 by Beaucaire