Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Owlbread]

I don't understand why some people have tried to nominate Jimmy Carter for some kind of "world statesman" role now that Mandela is dead. He was an insipid wet blanket who completely failed to manage both Iran and the USSR properly, failed to manage the economy to a respectable standard and reneged on many of his election promises, and on top of all that led to the rise of Reaganism through his failings. Why do we feel the need to try to validate him? Just let him fade. If I ever see Obama in a similar role I will gag.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Mostly because Jimmy Carter gets a similar rap to George the Younger: Not liked as Presidents, never really hated as people. Obama is doubtful to get the same treatment, since a good amount of Americans hate him in a very personal way.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I don't understand why some people have tried to nominate Jimmy Carter for some kind of "world statesman" role now that Mandela is dead. He was an insipid wet blanket who completely failed to manage both Iran and the USSR properly, failed to manage the economy to a respectable standard and reneged on many of his election promises, and on top of all that led to the rise of Reaganism through his failings. Why do we feel the need to try to validate him? Just let him fade. If I ever see Obama in a similar role I will gag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_David_Accords

He's quite relevant to us who don't like to see repeats of massive useless wars. Being of Jewish blood with a distaste for the conflicts, I revere the man for forcing them to come to terms.

[PTTG??]

You hear about Regan all the time, but for some reason you never hear about Lincoln. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that he was forced to take a radical progressive stance against "state's rights." Maybe because an important group of Republican voters are still angry about him freeing all their slaves.

[Max White]

I thought Lincoln was a republican... Isn't that basically the republic parties last moral fig leaf to justify their ever more racist extremists rantings?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Lincoln was the first Republican President.

[Max White]

Really? It only took one Republican to cause those dirty Democrats to rise up in an act of civil disobedience? Have they no shame!
huehuehue

[Ogdibus]

Nixon's campaign is when the racism became a fixture in Republican election strategy.  That's when the "Southern Strategy" started.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Really? It only took one Republican to cause those dirty Democrats to rise up in an act of civil disobedience? Have they no shame!
huehuehue

You jest, but there are people who seriously argue that the Democrats are still evil and racist today because of their position before the great switch. A common argument is that the Democrats are trying to "replace chains with social services to keep black people enslaved" (there are more white people than black people on welfare in America, by the way).

Nixon's campaign is when the racism became a fixture in Republican election strategy.  That's when the "Southern Strategy" started.

And Obama put serious cracks in it. The way things are going, North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina are all in danger of turning blue soon. Virginia is pretty much blue now as well.

[Max White]

Well if health care and reasonable wages is slavery, then bring on the death panels shackles!

I will never understand how people equate not having to pay taxes with economic liberty. Not having a small part of your income go towards public services isn't freedom, being able to know that you are going to actually have enough money left over at the end of the week to plan for the week after is freedom...

[Owlbread]

Wait, Georgia is in danger of turning blue? Honest to god?

[FearfulJesuit]

Wait, Georgia is in danger of turning blue? Honest to god?

Sure. Atlanta is one of America's biggest cities (Georgia is the nation's ninth most populous state with 16 electoral states) and is the Southeast's media and cultural capital. The state's also just over 30% black, and it has the third-smallest proportion of people over 65. That's in line with a swing state, and in fact the Obama campaign tossed around making a bid for the state in 2012; in the end it had the highest proportion of Obama voters of any red state except North Carolina, which went blue in '08. If Texas can go swing, Georgia definitely will.

[Max White]

Why do I get the feeling that we are singing siren songs to each other, and next election the walls will be painted red? I just can't help thinking something is going to go bad just as things start to turn good...

[Owlbread]

As much as I disagree with the two party system and the Republican party I'm not sure if I like the idea of such a blue America. I do have an equally strong aversion towards the Democratic Party and would most sincerely hope that in the event of a blue America (as these swing states mean nothing is "safe" for Republicans) things start to break up and we see different political parties getting into either state or federal government.

The last thing I want (besides another Republican victory) is a large, all or 90% blue USA led by Hillary Clinton where substantial opposition is hard to find and apathy runs rampant.

[Owlbread]

Also, if it becomes 90% blue, what's to stop them actually trying to keep the populace from voting for the other party?

They control the vast majority, they can screw over the people more often.

I'm not sure if they'd really become a totalitarian state like that, that's a bit far fetched, but I do fear a system where the Democrats have that much power. Them "screwing people over" isn't all that far fetched, especially if you end up with someone like Hillary who's a bit too authoritarian for my liking.