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.
If you can't figure that out from the OP. I don't have enough time to explain it to you.
Ummmm....... some idiots then were asking the same stupid question if the Democrats could get back in office,
I knew that. I just somewhat struck that he poster had to reach back to the 1970's to make an inane analogy. Carter was a one termer with a lot on his plate and not a lot of options for a successful presidency. Obama was clearly the better, more popular choice for American voters, so he was re-elected. The Repubs just can't get over that Obama was elected twice, especially the poster who had to reach back to an inaccurate comparison to Carter.
"If Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had seen 50 years into the future, he might have been tempted to add "Democrats and Republicans" to the historically antagonistic pairings — "black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics" — who, in his "I Have A Dream" speech, would one day hold hands and sing "Free at last."
The parties have seldom seemed so far apart as they did Wednesday, on the 50th anniversary of King's speech and the March on Washington. Not a single spoke at the "Let Freedom Ring" event at the Lincoln Memorial, site of King's 1963 speech, though some were invited.
House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio attended an earlier march commemoration on Capitol Hill, and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia was traveling in Ohio and North Dakota, according to explaining why they declined invitations. Former President George W. Bush was invited by event organizers, but declined because of recent heart surgery.
Whatever the reasons, the absence of any prominent past or present Republican official in a speaking role at the commemoration is unlikely to help the party's outreach to minorities. The hulking marble presence of the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, didn't really make up for the absence of living, breathing GOP officials.
So instead of a bipartisan celebration of one of the 20th century's greatest speeches and one of the most significant demonstrations in U.S. history, the event sometimes took on the feel of a Democratic National Convention. It seemed like just one more stop on the polarization express."
Unlikely. The GOP would alienate many of its current voters with such a move, and I'm not sure that the increased female vote for the GOP will fully compensate for this.
Golly, we can't lose the base that got the GOP killed in 2008 and 2012?
The Republican could most certainly win the next presidential election if they put forth a moderate candidate, but that will not happen due to the extreme right weeding them out in the primaries.
The Republican could most certainly win the next presidential election if they put forth a moderate candidate, but that will not happen due to the extreme right weeding them out in the primaries.
, it would have to be a candidate who was ALWAYS a moderate, ran as a moderate through the primary, and was at ease with demographic groups different from his friends/family as W was with Latinos. They would have to run on a NON pro-life platform in order to truly qualify as a moderate. They would have to be seeking immigration reform to truly be seen as a moderate.
No offense, but it is only dehumanizing because certain people make it dehumanizing. The fact that these immigrants are here illegally is a fact.
You like to play around with semantics. It might be cute and a fascinating thing to you but meanwhile, as I pointed out, the labeling of human beings as "illegals" is hateful and pejorative. Its usage is a conversation stopper, much like I have no patience with right wingers who consistently use the label "Democrat" as in "Democrat Party" or "Democrat controlled" when the proper usage of the word is "Democratic." Ditto for conservatives (deliberate?) mispronunciation of "nuclear." I guess they take pride in their ignorance of proper grammar, pronounciation and syntax.
Status:
"Let's replace the puppet show with actual leadership."
(set 47 minutes ago)
Location: Suburban Dallas
52,698 posts, read 47,975,215 times
Reputation: 33865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justme305
Face it, the GOP can't possibly win the 2016 general election unless it stops trying to undermine social issues such as gay marriage or abortion. The Tea Party movement had a lot of merit as it only focused on fiscal issues without touching any of the social issues. THAT'S the path that the GOP should've taken for the 2012 election. Instead the GOP chose to pander to the religious right.
Running on a borderline-theocracy platform isn't going to accomplish anything. Your religious values belong in your church and in your home, period. Don't try to impose your beliefs on the entire country.
Not so fast. The left extremists are so obsessed with secondary issues such as special interests. The economy is still the top priority of conservatives. Liberals are not interested in the economy because they take an anti-job stance. That said, the GOP has to reunite and be in one accord on principles. They must stand by them and not compromise with the left. Sticking with principles is what wins elections.
Besides, political outcomes always go in swings. The left can't "dominate" forever.
Not so fast. The left extremists are so obsessed with secondary issues such as special interests. The economy is still the top priority of conservatives. Liberals are not interested in the economy because they take an anti-job stance. That said, the GOP has to reunite and be in one accord on principles. They must stand by them and not compromise with the left. Sticking with principles is what wins elections.
Besides, political outcomes always go in swings. The left can't "dominate" forever.
This sounds like a Rush Limbaugh soundbite. Democrats aren't "anti-job". We just don't want corporations to control our country at the expense of the poor and middle class.
As far as "sticking with principles wins elections," how did that work the last two elections? Maybe the GOP just has crummy principles that don't appeal to many average Americans anymore.
Not so fast. The left extremists are so obsessed with secondary issues such as special interests. The economy is still the top priority of conservatives. Liberals are not interested in the economy because they take an anti-job stance. That said, the GOP has to reunite and be in one accord on principles. They must stand by them and not compromise with the left. Sticking with principles is what wins elections.
Besides, political outcomes always go in swings. The left can't "dominate" forever.
Nonsense, winning swing voters wins elections. Winning the nation's smallest base (for the math challenged, larger base beats smaller base every time unless smaller captures overwhelming majority of swing voters not part of a base) has cost the GOP 5 of the last 6 popular votes.
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.
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.
, it would have to be a candidate who was ALWAYS a moderate, ran as a moderate through the primary, and was at ease with demographic groups different from his friends/family as W was with Latinos. They would have to run on a NON pro-life platform in order to truly qualify as a moderate. They would have to be seeking immigration reform to truly be seen as a moderate.