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.
yes, they should , just as us Libertarians should. The more the merrier!
i guess Republicans could run a candidate if they want to provide an amusing political sideshow, but they should realize that until they radically overhaul their platform, they have no chance of winning. You can't win a national election by sidelining 47 percent of the US population.
i guess Republicans could run a candidate if they want to provide an amusing political sideshow, but they should realize that until they radically overhaul their platform, they have no chance of winning. You can't win a national election by sidelining 47 percent of the US population.
Sure you can. All the Republicans have to do is hold together until the Democrat wave is over. See, that 47 percent used to be 30 percent. The number of people who are taking more money out of the system than they are putting in is growing every year. Once it reaches a point where the average American's lifestyle is interrupted by the rampant spending of the Democrats, then they will wake up and the Democrats will find themselves on the same "wrong side of history" that they are now claiming for conservatives. The people who see the current trend as if it is the march of history are wrong. Politics is a pendulum and we are just on a liberal swing right now. When the liberal tax-and-spend policies get out of control, the pendulum swings conservative, then when it swings conservative enough that people say hey times are really good let's share some of this wealth with the less fortunate then the pendulum swings back to the left again. That's how you get Carter, then Reagan/BushSr, then Clinton, then Bush Jr, then Obama. D-R-D-R-D
Sure you can. All the Republicans have to do is hold together until the Democrat wave is over. See, that 47 percent used to be 30 percent. The number of people who are taking more money out of the system than they are putting in is growing every year. Once it reaches a point where the average American's lifestyle is interrupted by the rampant spending of the Democrats, then they will wake up and the Democrats will find themselves on the same "wrong side of history" that they are now claiming for conservatives. The people who see the current trend as if it is the march of history are wrong. Politics is a pendulum and we are just on a liberal swing right now. When the liberal tax-and-spend policies get out of control, the pendulum swings conservative, then when it swings conservative enough that people say hey times are really good let's share some of this wealth with the less fortunate then the pendulum swings back to the left again. That's how you get Carter, then Reagan/BushSr, then Clinton, then Bush Jr, then Obama. D-R-D-R-D
You're ridiculously out of touch brother. The Republicans have marginalized all non-whites and most under 40. You aren't going to be a viable national party with that approach.
I see your other dumb thread about the Republicans failed, so now you start an even dumber thread.
Just because the Dims are in office now does not mean they will be in four years from now.
Lets look at the last few Presidents.
Reagan Republican 8 years
Bush republican 4 years
Clinton Democrat 8 years
Bush Republican 8 years
Obama Democrat
Get the picture? You are there now, but you won't stay. Guaranteed.
Last edited by Scotty011; 02-16-2013 at 11:30 AM..
I see your other dumb thread about the Republicans failed, so now you start an even dumber thread.
Just because the Dims are in office now does not mean they will be in four years from now.
My other thread did not fail, Scotty. One of the mods on here pretty much deletes every thread I start as trolling. I suspect she'll delete this one too soon, even though I do raise serious questions.
I first realized the Republican Party was in serious trouble by reading an article by Karl Rove. He's a sound political tactician. He realized even before 2000 that the Latino demographic shift was going to have serious reprecussions for the GOP. He tried to get the GOP off of the anit-immigration kick but failed.
He also realized that the enormously popular entitlement programs Social Security and Medicare have won the Democrats elections for generations and will continue to do so. That's why he wanted to overhaul Social Security with personal investments. If his idea took hold, it would be associated with Republicanism, and if popular, would presumably win the GOP elections for generations to come.
And the gays? We see now that gay bigotry is becoming a serious liability.
I may be exaggerating by stating that the GOP shouldn't bother running in 2016, but the problems that the party are facing are systemic and growing. They are going to face an even tougher electorate in 2016. If they don't seriously overhaul thier platform, they don't have a chance in hell of winning.
No, the GOP needs to grow up and start acting like adults. Until then, they can run as the waa-waa party.
And you are claiming YOU always like an adult on this site?
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.
