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.
Although we may have to remind some people how much damage the last two Bushes did, I'm sure most American's did not forget.
Pshaw. The first Bush was a rather competent president. A master of foreign policy, who managed to navigate the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the later collapse of the Soviet Union with dexterity. A lesser foreign policy president would have gotten us into a serious shooting war (Which the first Gulf War definitely wasn't). The only flaw in his presidency is that he had a minor recession that was triggered by an uptick in oil prices. That's far more than we can say about the current president and his former Secretary of State.
I just read today that Hillary is already making the rounds in Congress getting Dems on her side.
She learned from 2008 when Obama, from nowhere, took over the lead.
No Nate, it's arithmetic -- something I had previously mistaken you as being proficient at. When the youngest segment of the population is the most Democratic-leaning, and the oldest cohort the most Republican, nature has a way of resolving the impasse.
You know, its this funny thing, here in Arizona, Sun City has been around for decades, yet year after year, it always manages to be filled with people over 55. It's almost like they keep on coming.............
All that matters is the people who actually come out to vote on election day, nothing every moves in one direction forever, the pendulum goes back and forth, only ideologues on both sides fail to accept that.
I just read today that Hillary is already making the rounds in Congress getting Dems on her side.
She learned from 2008 when Obama, from nowhere, took over the lead.
It will be interesting to see if Webb can do it this time. He's no Barack, but he is no Hillary either.
"All that matters is the people who actually come out to vote on election day, nothing every moves in one direction forever, the pendulum goes back and forth, only ideologues on both sides fail to accept that."
Sure, but that's going to require some ideological flexibility on the part of the GOP -- young people aren't going to shift their positions on gay marriage, marijuana, global warming, etc.
Last edited by drishmael; 04-16-2015 at 11:21 PM..
Sure, but that's going to require some ideological flexibility on the part of the GOP -- young people aren't going to shift their positions on gay marriage, marijuana, global warming, etc.
I'm for the government getting entirely out of the marriage debate. I don't believe it is appropriate for the government to regulate marriage. I also don't find that the government should be telling adults what they can and can't smoke or what they can and can't put in their bodies. Drug warring is expensive, very expensive both in dollars and it's effects on society.
I also believe in a non-interventionist foreign policy. I'm not sure what is "conservative" about nation building, democracy spreading, and preemptive warfare. Traditionally aggressive foreign policy is a hallmark of liberalism.
The thing is, I consider myself to be a hardcore conservative. Most people would call me a libertarian but I reject that label because I think my positions are actually conservative positions. Conservatism calls for limited government and a restrained foreign policy. Conservatives understand that "the government which governs best, governs least." In my mind "libertarianism" is only necessary because at some point conservatives lost their way.
You know they thought that about McCain and Romney and look what happened. Given the choice between generic Republican and generic Democrat (Hillary Clinton) the electorate will tend to go Democrat because they are perceived as offering more free stuff and will pander harder to minorities. Not to mention anyone who thinks that a candidate with the last name "Bush" is going to be less polarizing is living in some sort of fantasy world. The only name more polarizing than "Hillary" in politics right now is "Bush." If GOP strategists really think this way it is no wonder they keep getting crushed in national elections.
Much of those issues are pointless arguments over semantics. Rand gets hit on gay marriage because he believes marriage can only between a man and a woman but is in favor of equal treatment under the law. Here's a quote from him on it:
For him I think the issue is in regards to religious freedom. He doesn't want the government to rewrite the definition of marriage officially because that at some point could lead to the state leaning on churches to perform gay weddings even if it violates the tenets of their faith. It sounds complicated only because we're used to hearing the black and white talking points from establishment Democrats and Republicans.
The difference between Jeb and McCain/Romney is that he's not out of touch. He's married to a Hispanic and he has been candid about his position on immigration.
The difference between Jeb and McCain/Romney is that he's not out of touch. He's married to a Hispanic and he has been candid about his position on immigration.
I don't see how who he is married to should be relevant to his ability to be the president.
But his personal hispanic connection does make him more open to hispanic concerns, and that affects his stance on immigration issues.
It makes him more open to pandering and playing racial politics for sure.
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.