U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-14-2014, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,521 posts, read 14,627,235 times
Reputation: 9258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by northbound74 View Post
When have the republicans ran a religious old person? McCain? Old but far from evangelical. Extremely moderate to boot, and to not vote for him because of Palin, yet voting for Obama in spite of Biden, is just plain hypocritical.
Romney? Perhaps even more moderate than McCain. Although people liked to obsess over his Mormonism, he rarely if ever focused on it, instead tried to campaign on things that actually mattered, unlike Obama&Co.

Bush? Moderate. Very much so.
Dole? Moderate but old just like Hillary.
Elder Bush? Moderate.
Reagan? Old but moderate.

Oh, the primaries you say? HA! Dems have no room to be talking about who's in those. That's why we have primaries: to hopefully weed that out.
Republicans haven't had a weird candidate since Goldwater (one of the fathers of the current libertarians) in 1964 and he only won four states including Arizona. I doubt that if the TEA Party could get much more than maybe five states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-14-2014, 01:45 PM
Status: "GOP = Jobs Liberals = MOBS" (set 18 days ago)
 
12,691 posts, read 6,982,997 times
Reputation: 6122
I haven't been following this thread but is this because the Clinton's will have anyone who runs against her killed? They seem to be fairly good at making people go away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2014, 02:28 PM
 
Location: SE Arizona - FINALLY! :D
19,003 posts, read 22,026,807 times
Reputation: 6563
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMoreYouKnow View Post
I haven't been following this thread but is this because the Clinton's will have anyone who runs against her killed? They seem to be fairly good at making people go away.
That's a bunch of idiotic nonsense as bad and as dumb as this Bush "hit list":

Dead People With Connections To The Bush Dynasty

The fact is ANY President has had contact with tens of thousands of people and it's pretty darned easy for unethical blog writers to make a connection to plenty of folks who have died and somehow make it sound "mysterious" and "suspecious" - that DOESN'T mean it makes any sense.


Idiots will still buy into it mind you - which is what such writers are counting on (the fact that a certain percentage of their readers are, well, quite frankly, stupid) - and that's why such lists show up from time to time and once invented stay on the web FOREVER, simply being passed around from moron to moron.

Ken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 05:31 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,338 posts, read 10,697,324 times
Reputation: 9543
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
so you are saying what? People who are religious are automatically Christian? Or are you suggesting only one side selects Christians as their candidate? Are you telling us, you don't believe Obama is a Christian and what about Carter? When it comes to age: I think, looking at the names being passed around, the Dems look like they will have a lock on that in 2016.
In the last fifteen years religion in America has declined: The Great Decline: 60 years of religion in one graph | Corner of Church and State. Yes; America still has it's conservative Christians - but they are quickly loosing power: Religion Among Americans Hits Low Point, As More People Say They Have No Religious Affiliation: Report.

When I was a kid, and somebody announced to the world that they were atheist, they would be beaten, shot at, vandalized or worse (Madeline Murray O'Hare).

Times are changing and it will eventually effect politics. If the trends continue it will be interesting where the conservative movement hangs it's hat. I hope that they back fiscally conservative government - I do not feel that it does any of us any good to operate deeply in debt. On that note - where are the conservative Dems?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,580 posts, read 79,902,974 times
Reputation: 38956
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
In the last fifteen years religion in America has declined: The Great Decline: 60 years of religion in one graph | Corner of Church and State. Yes; America still has it's conservative Christians - but they are quickly loosing power: Religion Among Americans Hits Low Point, As More People Say They Have No Religious Affiliation: Report.

When I was a kid, and somebody announced to the world that they were atheist, they would be beaten, shot at, vandalized or worse (Madeline Murray O'Hare).

Times are changing and it will eventually effect politics. If the trends continue it will be interesting where the conservative movement hangs it's hat. I hope that they back fiscally conservative government - I do not feel that it does any of us any good to operate deeply in debt. On that note - where are the conservative Dems?
Part of what you say I agree with, part I do not: You are right about religion in America but I really don't think your religion or lack of same will be a huge issue in the 2016 election. Remember I was responding to a posting that was pretty nutty to say the least. Oh and as for M.M. O'Hare that was an exception, though you are right about what happened to her. I am not arguing about being a believer or a non believer or taking sides. I am taking issue with a statement about only old, religious Christians represent the Republicans but not the Democrats. You notice the poster did not respond to my comments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Swiftwater, PA
13,338 posts, read 10,697,324 times
Reputation: 9543
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
Part of what you say I agree with, part I do not: You are right about religion in America but I really don't think your religion or lack of same will be a huge issue in the 2016 election. Remember I was responding to a posting that was pretty nutty to say the least. Oh and as for M.M. O'Hare that was an exception, though you are right about what happened to her. I am not arguing about being a believer or a non believer or taking sides. I am taking issue with a statement about only old, religious Christians represent the Republicans but not the Democrats. You notice the poster did not respond to my comments.
I did qualify my remarks: "Times are changing and it will eventually effect politics."

I still don't understand why we are embracing the old dinosaurs. People want change and not just a meaningless word. Nobody will ever convince me that Hillary represents true change. I cannot fathom why neither party cannot come up with one smart, younger (over 35), woman that has the whole package. We have had 44 male Presidents and not one female. Congress and our President want to talk about equality in the workplace - isn't it time to talk about leadership equality?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 07:17 AM
 
5,368 posts, read 5,748,746 times
Reputation: 7158
If Rand Paul was smart, he wouldnt run until the next presidential election cycle. America hates losers and we typically dont elect candidates who've lost previous elections. The last presidential candidate to get a second chance and win was Nixon.

Assuming that Hillary runs, shes going to win. Paul needs to let Huckabee or Jeb Bush catch that L and wait for things to swing back in the GOP's favor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 08:20 AM
 
Location: north central Ohio
8,094 posts, read 3,988,479 times
Reputation: 4806
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
so you are saying what? People who are religious are automatically Christian? Or are you suggesting only one side selects Christians as their candidate? Are you telling us, you don't believe Obama is a Christian and what about Carter? When it comes to age: I think, looking at the names being passed around, the Dems look like they will have a lock on that in 2016.
LOL, actually the vast majority of those who 'profess' to be 'Christian' are nothing more than Sunday morning pew-warmers,who put their god back in their box as soon as they walk out the church doors[ever observe them flipping off people in traffic on the way home,lol?].

Absolutely the majority of Republicans will only elect someone who claims to be Christian,regardless of which denomination.

So politicians of both parties will definitely pretend to be religious,or Christian to get elected!!!

Organized Crime isn't gone from America,it's just taken over the political system!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
69,580 posts, read 79,902,974 times
Reputation: 38956
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisheye View Post
I did qualify my remarks: "Times are changing and it will eventually effect politics."

I still don't understand why we are embracing the old dinosaurs. People want change and not just a meaningless word. Nobody will ever convince me that Hillary represents true change. I cannot fathom why neither party cannot come up with one smart, younger (over 35), woman that has the whole package. We have had 44 male Presidents and not one female. Congress and our President want to talk about equality in the workplace - isn't it time to talk about leadership equality?
I do agree: I do not care whether we elect a female or male, I can about their ability to lead and their overall views. Do they pretty much follow what I believe in. Not that I am right, but I would like a candidate that shares my ideas. Right now, and this is just my feeling at the moment, the only one being heard that seems to really want change is Rand Paul, like him or not. He does have some good, ideas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-15-2014, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
25,521 posts, read 14,627,235 times
Reputation: 9258
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradPiff View Post
If Rand Paul was smart, he wouldnt run until the next presidential election cycle. America hates losers and we typically dont elect candidates who've lost previous elections. The last presidential candidate to get a second chance and win was Nixon.

Assuming that Hillary runs, shes going to win. Paul needs to let Huckabee or Jeb Bush catch that L and wait for things to swing back in the GOP's favor.
Refer to my previous post about her answering the phone at 3AM in the white house and remember what happened with Benghazi. Yeah, that shows Hillary is an effective leader and will win. If she does, I LOST ALL HOPE IN AMERICA TO PICK A PRESIDENT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top