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 04-20-2015, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Florida
22,095 posts, read 9,386,958 times
Reputation: 18040

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurefinder View Post
The Presidency is there for the Republicans to take. I dont understand, why they are not following the advice which followed from the last election. They commissioned the study, and are not following the feedback given to them. I watch, and read a ton of political news/shows/articles. The republicans need to stop railing against Hillary and start talking about what they are going to do for the country. Hillary is not well liked by a lot of indies, also a lot of dems dont like her. They would be easy pickings for a sensible republican, if they would just get over Hillary. Why waste your energy on her at this point? I am not saying none of them have talked about what they will do, however, they spend far too much energy and time on Hillary. Its like they are obsessing over her as they do Obama. I know the Clintons are very much disliked and elicit a lot of ill feelings but good grief, just get over them. Hillary is doing a damn fine job of shooting herself in the foot.
Some of us indies would like to hear what the Republicans will do.
Excellent point and something quite a few people are beginning to notice. When Democratic strategists are happy with the what the Republican candidates are saying, you know they are doing something wrong.

Terry McAuliffe on Meet the Press:

"What voters want is someone who's going to lay out an agenda of how you move the country forward," he said on the show Sunday. "You see a lot of Republican candidates spending all of their time attacking Hillary. That's great. Let them do it. From my perspective, every second they're not talking about how we move this great nation forward is great for Hillary Clinton. Let her lay out her positive agenda."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:20 PM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
29,735 posts, read 16,475,984 times
Reputation: 22338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dockside View Post
That's some great advice. Don't fight back. Let your opponent say anything they want about you. Don't ever ever be mean. Just hew to the liberal agenda and shut up. That's some kind of brilliant advice for a political campaign.
Whatever. Republicans should have won in 2012. Obama wasn't that popular; the economy wasn't looking good . .and they still lost.

Because you can't alienate half of America and expect to win.

History tells us that . . this election cycle should go to a Republican. If they don't screw it up and chances of that are extremely high.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,396,115 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enigma777 View Post
"What voters want is someone who's going to lay out an agenda of how you move the country forward," he said on the show Sunday. "You see a lot of Republican candidates spending all of their time attacking Hillary. That's great. Let them do it. From my perspective, every second they're not talking about how we move this great nation forward is great for Hillary Clinton. Let her lay out her positive agenda."


Mrs. Clinton's position, and her positive agenda, is that she wants more of the same. If that's what the people want, it really doesn't matter what the GOP candidates say or don't say.


Saying that the 2016 election is the Republicans "for the taking" is absurd. There are enough people dependent on the government, and pleased with the events of the past 6 years, that it will be extraordinarily difficult for any Republican. And any Republican will be attacked as an "extremist", count on it. Even if the GOP were to nominate a true blue liberal like Huntsman or Powell or one of the girls from Maine, they'd still be raked over the coals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:27 PM
 
36,320 posts, read 16,222,932 times
Reputation: 9760
Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurefinder View Post
If Republicans could stay off the social stuff, stop opposing everything that helps poor./middle class, stop supporting everything that helps the upper echelon, they could win. They come off as disingenuous big time. We dont have money to give middle class breaks, we cut food stamps, we wont give students a fair interest rate on student loans, even though the banks are getting the money almost zero percent interest, and the list goes on....They cant run on the economy, and they wont win constantly criticizing Hillary. They have to tell us what they are going to do. They have to stop excoriating anyone who wants to work with the other side, its just not productive.
People have principles and it is a part of their being. Views on social issues are a part of that. Just because they run for an elective office doesn't change that. Chrisitianity and it's teachings is a part of many Americans beings just as some who are atheists it is a part of whom they are. You can't run for office and shut those personal things off. If an issue is on the table either side has the right to object to it or to condone it. It's the American way.

It's nonsense that the GOP is opposed to helping the poor and least of all the middle class. None of us oppose helping the "truly" needy. Can you say with a straight face that the Democrats are for them while they push an amnesty for illegal aliens that hurts both of those groups in so many ways?

The Democrats are just as much in the back pockets of big business just as much as the GOP is. Who do you think you are kidding?

Both parties criticize members of the other side before and after any elections. Are you saying that the Democrats aren't guilty of this? Please.............

It's not productive to work with the other side if the other side is pushing anti-American interests and won't budge from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory View Post
People have principles and it is a part of their being. Views on social issues are a part of that. Just because they run for an elective office doesn't change that. Chrisitianity and it's teachings is a part of many Americans beings just as some who are atheists it is a part of whom they are. You can't run for office and shut those personal things off. If an issue is on the table either side has the right to object to it or to condone it. It's the American way.
Can you not be a Christian and still believe that man could marry (by law and NOT in front of God) another man? Can you not be Christian and still be pro-abortion at least in cases of rape, incest and the well being of the mother?
Just because you allow them because of equality, don't mean you are disobeying God. As I said before, God is the disappointed father that will accept us for what we are if we apologize no matter of we are homosexual, transgender, gamblers, thefts, adulterer or loose. All we have to do is say "God, I am sorry for X." And He will. Why should followers of God be any different?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,396,115 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post
Just because you allow them because of equality, don't mean you are disobeying God. As I said before, God is the disappointed father that will accept us for what we are if we apologize no matter of we are homosexual, transgender, gamblers, thefts, adulterer or loose. All we have to do is say "God, I am sorry for X." And He will. Why should followers of God be any different?
The concept isn't to "apologize" to God, but to repent or turn away from one's sins.

I'm sure that some people have the theological view that gay marriage and abortion aren't sins.

And for those people, they can't repent as they believe its ok so they aren't going to turn away from it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:54 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,608 posts, read 11,147,070 times
Reputation: 6103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Well said.
Thing is when anyone tries telling the Repubs this they get all bent out of shape and refuse to listen to any advice. Hopefully the GOP has learned more than some of the posters here and some of us will actually have a choice when it comes to the election, sick and tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.
Well said??? Why listen to your advice? You voted for Obama so what do you know?

The dems big government policies are horrible. The economy isnt very good and we're still in never ending wars in the Middle East. Yeah lets listen to failure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Texas
26,608 posts, read 11,147,070 times
Reputation: 6103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
Thanks for prove the perfect example of what I pointed out. Repeat the same old same and expect different results, maybe one of these days you will learn, or maybe you won't.
Yet that is what the dems and Obamas big government policies have been like. Nothing different just repeat the same failed policies and expect different results. The definition of insanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 06:56 PM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
27,146 posts, read 15,682,515 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by treasurefinder View Post
I would agree with this, I abhor Obamacare, however I do like keeping kids on to age 24. It would be nice if Rs would offer an alternative. I have no opinion on gay marriage on way or the other, pretty much whatever floats your boat. But I need abortion to be a legal choice. I can be flexible on late term abortion.
I don't like it either, there are numerous holes in it. The problem is the Republicans want to repeal with no plan B if the repeal is signed. As of right now it is repeal and THEN go back to the drawing board. Shouldn't it be the other way around where you create a proposal to replace with the repeal? This is where Republicans lose me when they call to repeal Obamacare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Like_Spam View Post
I'm surprised by this answer.

If I was that enamored by the idea of Obamacare, I'd be sure to get out and vote for Mrs. Clinton, as she was part of the party that gave the program to the America instead of casting for a johnny-come-lately like Paul, Rubio or Walker showing their approval.

And if I didn't like the program, and thought it was an important enough issue, I wouldn't vote for either side if they both were in favor of the darn thing.
Ironicly, I am not wanting Hillary as President. I'll bite third party if she and Cruz are the two options.

I am favor of fixing the law. There are coverage holes based on it being a law working off of state Medicaid programs as well as the possibility that states ruining a federal exchange could lose the tax subsidy (something I don't think would happen but possible none the less.) The answer fir fixing is not repeal and THEN fix.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-20-2015, 07:07 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
7,542 posts, read 8,396,115 times
Reputation: 3482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk View Post

I am favor of fixing the law. There are coverage holes based on it being a law working off of state Medicaid programs as well as the possibility that states ruining a federal exchange could lose the tax subsidy (something I don't think would happen but possible none the less.) The answer fir fixing is not repeal and THEN fix.
One problem with the ACA is that it gives states that agree to expand medicaid a large financial advantage over more frugal jurisdictions. I think any fix will have to have the states that benefited from medicaid expansion funds fork over the difference in order to equalize the accounts for the past, before we can move to the future.
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 09:34 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