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 04-26-2015, 11:11 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,371 posts, read 15,806,809 times
Reputation: 9892

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
If there were more just like him, Government would not play us all like a fiddle.

The battle has never been Republican v. Democrat. That is the illusion government creates, so the ignorant will never see it is the government v. the people and always has been.
The entire reason We The People, created a US Constitution to chain the government down from over reaching liberty.
In a way, yes but I've also said all along government is just the tool society uses. Society is the one who determines what freedoms we have. That's why slavery and Jim Crow lasted so long, society really didn't really push against it. It was individuals that pushed for government to change rather than government itself. Were there individuals for those causes in congress and the white house, yet but one or two can only do so much. It takes numbers for a cause to happen. If the society wants collectivism, government will go towards that but if the society wants more individual freedom (provided it don't infringe on other's individual freedoms.)

The battle has been Republican v Democrat since 1860 with the Whigs and Democratic-Republicans before them and the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans before that. There have always been a push-pull between strong central government with a decreased ability for states to govern and a decentralized central government with more powers to the state governments. The issue is I've seen states not act in the best interest of those govern and instead slash budgets at the expense of those who need it including school age children in public schools.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2015, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Texas
26,764 posts, read 11,232,823 times
Reputation: 6155
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head View Post
Great job on electing McCain and Romney.

So what do you think the Supreme Court will look like after 13 more years of Democratic administrations? Think Scalia and Kennedy have that many years left in them?
Can't be any worse than the economy now can it?
Can't wait for your response playing the race card.

btw the Tea Party didn't go for either one of those big government Obama clones. That's another thing you have wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2015, 11:25 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,371 posts, read 15,806,809 times
Reputation: 9892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Can't be any worse than the economy now can it?
Can't wait for your response playing the race card.

btw the Tea Party didn't go for either one of those big government Obama clones. That's another thing you have wrong.
Yeah and yet the complain how Obama is still in office. They had the chance to help Romney but sat on their duffs with the boo-boo face. If they win the nomination, they'll have the boo-boo face again but because they realized what the public already knew, they aren't electable on the national stage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,371 posts, read 15,806,809 times
Reputation: 9892
Another thing I just thought about if these conservatives that stayed home were in red states, it wouldn't effect the vote, the same with a blue state with a high margin. The purple states however is where stay at home votes would make the most difference. If I or BentBow stayed at home, Arizona and Texas would still be red regardless.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 03:47 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Another thing I just thought about if these conservatives that stayed home were in red states, it wouldn't effect the vote, the same with a blue state with a high margin. The purple states however is where stay at home votes would make the most difference. If I or BentBow stayed at home, Arizona and Texas would still be red regardless.

No doubt!

And what makes it real interesting is there are no Red states turning purple.
The so called blue states, cannot all say that.
You don't get 31 states, with a more conservative leadership, by being a blue state.


The real working people, just out to live comfortably, regardless of political lines... Hate the corrupt politician no matter what letter they may wear. Only those that benefit from the corruption, will agree that corruption was OK..... Until the shoe is on the other foot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,371 posts, read 15,806,809 times
Reputation: 9892
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
No doubt!

And what makes it real interesting is there are no Red states turning purple.
The so called blue states, cannot all say that.
You don't get 31 states, with a more conservative leadership, by being a blue state.


The real working people, just out to live comfortably, regardless of political lines... Hate the corrupt politician no matter what letter they may wear. Only those that benefit from the corruption, will agree that corruption was OK..... Until the shoe is on the other foot.
Maybe it is democrats not being voters in non-presidential years or perhaps they they like the message from the republican candidate locally vs nationally. I don't think it is an easy answer though. Regardless if the republicans lose anther one or worse two presidential elections, they will need to realign nationally
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Old Mother Idaho
21,508 posts, read 14,403,478 times
Reputation: 15901
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
No doubt!

And what makes it real interesting is there are no Red states turning purple.
The so called blue states, cannot all say that.
You don't get 31 states, with a more conservative leadership, by being a blue state.


The real working people, just out to live comfortably, regardless of political lines... Hate the corrupt politician no matter what letter they may wear. Only those that benefit from the corruption, will agree that corruption was OK..... Until the shoe is on the other foot.
Uh- it ain't the number of states, Bent.
One more time: It's the number of electoral votes that decides the winner. All the western red states combined can't overcome California alone. They can't even come close. When the rest of the blue states are added, the Republicans have just as much trouble getting the number of electoral votes needed as they had in 2008 and 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 04:20 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Maybe it is democrats not being voters in non-presidential years or perhaps they they like the message from the republican candidate locally vs nationally. I don't think it is an easy answer though. Regardless if the republicans lose anther one or worse two presidential elections, they will need to realign nationally

They may figure out, trying a progressive again and again and again, ain't gonna work. Like it hasn't for the last two times.
The only reason it was so close for Bush to beat Gore and Kerry, is because Bush wasn't shown as the greedy money grabber, as governor of Texas, where gore was shown to be daddy warbucks and Kerry, Mr. lotto Ketchup money and corruption. Bush was represented as the least wealthy.
Both Gore and Kerry should have beat Bush in landslides, had they not reeked of wealth and corruption.
We should not have been close to the hanging chad, in Jeb country.


Reagan had to be farther conservative than anyone, to get over his wealth, with poor peanut farm'in Carter.(HW Bush was shown to be more wealthy than Reagan in the primary)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 08:33 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,371 posts, read 15,806,809 times
Reputation: 9892
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
They may figure out, trying a progressive again and again and again, ain't gonna work. Like it hasn't for the last two times.
The only reason it was so close for Bush to beat Gore and Kerry, is because Bush wasn't shown as the greedy money grabber, as governor of Texas, where gore was shown to be daddy warbucks and Kerry, Mr. lotto Ketchup money and corruption. Bush was represented as the least wealthy.
Both Gore and Kerry should have beat Bush in landslides, had they not reeked of wealth and corruption.
We should not have been close to the hanging chad, in Jeb country.


Reagan had to be farther conservative than anyone, to get over his wealth, with poor peanut farm'in Carter.(HW Bush was shown to be more wealthy than Reagan in the primary)
I don't see being conservative the answer though and most of the nation don't. It's just the conservative echo chamber who thinks they are. I'm not saying they couldn't be, the issue is there are no real favorable conservative candidates out there. The three OFFICIAL candidates are Cruz, Paul and Rubio and Rubio has the most mass appeal of the three after Paul's miss-steps of changing. I wonder what Walker can do and has to offer but other than him, there aren't conservatives that can cross over enough to be electable. Reagan benefited from failed Carter policy but Obama hasn't had enough true failure for the entire nation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-27-2015, 08:44 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,574 posts, read 33,842,948 times
Reputation: 14280
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
I don't see being conservative the answer though and most of the nation don't. It's just the conservative echo chamber who thinks they are. I'm not saying they couldn't be, the issue is there are no real favorable conservative candidates out there. The three OFFICIAL candidates are Cruz, Paul and Rubio and Rubio has the most mass appeal of the three after Paul's miss-steps of changing. I wonder what Walker can do and has to offer but other than him, there aren't conservatives that can cross over enough to be electable. Reagan benefited from failed Carter policy but Obama hasn't had enough true failure for the entire nation.

What they have been doing ain't working... Is it?

The last time the republicans had a landslide, was with a much more conservative candidate once in the general election. The guy wasn't even young.
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 08:15 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