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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2015, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 15,267,250 times
Reputation: 4583

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I think yes but when I say that, the Republicans will have to change. To have any chance to win, Republicans have to get away from the anti-gay issues. In light of the Indiana law, possible Republican candidates including Ben Carson, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush support the law that allows businesses in Indiana to be discriminatory towards gays and those that do not share their beliefs. This wont help them if they have to win the general election on this issue. We all know Ted Cruz will likely support the law too (the only who is in the mix to not be entirely for the law are Rand Paul and Scott Walker.) If the Republicans lose, they will lose because they aren't moving to what a majority of the people want. If the majority want gay marriage or no ability for storeowners to refuse people's business just because they "look gay" or are gay.
Those Pols all know that in a couple of months they can say they never supported the bigotry laws and the rubes that follow them won't know that they ever did because FOX the only source of info for the rubes, won't show the video tapes of them making the bigotry supporting statements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2015, 06:52 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Those Pols all know that in a couple of months they can say they never supported the bigotry laws and the rubes that follow them won't know that they ever did because FOX the only source of info for the rubes, won't show the video tapes of them making the bigotry supporting statements.
Some went change on the issue like a Ben Carson or a states rights republican maybe in favor of the states making the decision but taking the Rand Paul stance of disagreeing with the purpose of the law.

That said, the issue is FNC isn't the only MSM station around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,396,115 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by dsjj251 View Post
The reason why the 18 trillion dollars in debt argument doesnt work is because most people understand you cant blame it on Democrats. That also isnt an economic issue. Qualitative easing some what is, but when was your Party actually against it ????? when the fed started buying debt(at least in large sums) Republicans still held the Senate, House and Presidency.
If you think that the average character on the street understand economics at all, I think you are out of touch.

That's why social issues are so critical, and always have been.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Tampa Florida
22,243 posts, read 15,267,250 times
Reputation: 4583
Now we will have to listen to the Repub Pols say they never supported the Ind and Ark Pro-discrimination laws. Jeb has already started his reversal process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob View Post
Now we will have to listen to the Repub Pols say they never supported the Ind and Ark Pro-discrimination laws. Jeb has already started his reversal process.
Yep and their credibility is a bit shot with me. And people wonder why Republicans can't win presidential elections, they flip-flop. The only one who doesn't is Cruz but I don't like his platform at all (as does enough of the nation.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 01:10 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,464 posts, read 8,479,915 times
Reputation: 19576
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
............Do you think social issues will dominate the 2016 campaign?
Yes. The social issues will be talked about and debated.

But, as in Wisconsin, all the chin-strokers will be left out and actual leaders will be chosen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 08:06 AM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,196 posts, read 33,593,322 times
Reputation: 14149
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618 View Post
I think this election is shaping up to be like 2004 in that it will be entirely focused on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religion in government. The religious right is the angriest they have ever been right now and with the national economy improving, I see the GOP running a "values voter" campaign. Since 2004 however demographics have changed as well as the country's overall acceptance of gay marriage so I don't see them being successful. Swing states like Colorado, Ohio, and Virginia will probably go blue handing the election to Hillary or whoever the Dems nominate. I think the Republican Party would have chance in 2016 if they would ditch social issues but I don't see them doing that, especially as angry as the religious right is over gay marriage right now.

Do you think social issues will dominate the 2016 campaign?

And the funny thing about social issues... The constitution does not authorize the centralized federal government, to even get involved.
It is left to the individual states, or the people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 12:22 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
And the funny thing about social issues... The constitution does not authorize the centralized federal government, to even get involved.
It is left to the individual states, or the people.
The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the Constitution that is in the Constitution. The reason why Obamacare was legal was because of changing the wording of the individual mandate to make it work within the confines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allows Congress to write laws that decreases states rights and the President to sign and enforce the laws that decrease states rights. If you want to change the Constitution, push for an amendment to force the change in the interpretation or wait for Justices to resign.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 01:32 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,196 posts, read 33,593,322 times
Reputation: 14149
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
The Supreme Court INTERPRETS the Constitution that is in the Constitution. The reason why Obamacare was legal was because of changing the wording of the individual mandate to make it work within the confines of the Constitution. The Supreme Court allows Congress to write laws that decreases states rights and the President to sign and enforce the laws that decrease states rights. If you want to change the Constitution, push for an amendment to force the change in the interpretation or wait for Justices to resign.
Yes, rewording...
They changed penalty to tax and all was good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2015, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9814
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
Yes, rewording...
They changed penalty to tax and all was good.
Yes because that is how the Supreme Court interpreted the law. They could have easily have said it was unconstitutional. If the Cato Institute lawsuit against Obamacare has a favorable ruling, it will have been because of the Supreme Court's interpretation that the state meant the individual state and not the state meaning federal government like it does in a legal sense. See what I am getting at here...
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. The time now is 03:34 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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