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.
I wish they were just one-liners. Unfortunately the GOP's lack of regard for those groups have deep insidious roots in the party that will be difficult for them to overcome. They can't just act like a party of inclusion ---they actually have to start including more people, or risk representing an ever-smaller sliver of the nation.
Funny how the meanest, most hateful people on this forum are the liberal women.....
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,861 posts, read 3,299,469 times
Reputation: 9146
I think that the Democrats will have a strangle hold on national elections in the near future. It may be in 2024 or 2028 but it is inevitable. It is simple demographics. The left wants to get as many illegal aliens in as possible. At a certain point they will make them legal. Then they will never lose again. We will move towards a socialist country. The only way I see this not happening is if we end up in a civil war. I don't know if that will ever happen. I guess we shall wait and see.
Going back to the start of Abraham Lincoln's presidency, which is when the two-party system we know today first started, there have been two extended periods of Republican dominance in the White House, and one period of Democrat dominance.
For 72 years from 1861 to 1933, the United States had 52 years of Republican presidency, and only 20 years of Democrat presidency between three presidents (Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson). The end of this era came with the ouster of Herbert Hoover.
For 36 years from 1933 to 1969, the United States had 28 years of Democrat presidency, and Dwight Eisenhower had the only eight years of Republican presidency during this time. This era ended when Lyndon B. Johnson chose not to run for reelection.
More recently, for 40 years from 1969 to 2009, the Republicans had the upper hand again, with 28 years of the presidency to only 12 years for the Democrats (Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton). It appears to me that this era has ended with George W. Bush's second term.
Right now, I believe that we've entered a second period of Democrat dominance. Why? Because Herbert Hoover, Lyndon B. Johnson and George W. Bush were all highly unpopular when they left office. Hoover was unpopular because of an economic calamity. Johnson was unpopular because of a controversial war. Bush was unpopular because of an economic calamity and a controversial war.
It took the Republicans a generation to recover from Hoover's bad reputation, and it took the Democrats a generation to recover from Johnson's bad reputation. Rightly or wrongly, Bush has a bad reputation, and I wonder if it'll take a generation for the Republicans to recover from it.
With that said, it's worth noting that the less popular political party has put at least one president into the White House for two terms during the dominance of the opposite party. Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were both two-term Democrats during a long era of Republican dominance. Dwight Eisenhower was a two-term Republican when the Democrats had the upper hand, and Bill Clinton was a two-term Democrat during the most recent Republican era.
The longest period of time that one political party has had control of the White House is 20 years, when the Democrats had it from 1933 to 1953. There were two 16-year periods of one-party control, both by the Republicans, from 1869 to 1885, and 1897 to 1913. Other than that, neither party has been in control for more than 12 years at a time, which illustrates that Americans don't tolerate continuous one-party rule well.
Any thoughts?
If trump and the republicans keep this up , yes, no doubt...maybe even longer!
I think that the Democrats will have a strangle hold on national elections in the near future. It may be in 2024 or 2028 but it is inevitable. It is simple demographics. The left wants to get as many illegal aliens in as possible. At a certain point they will make them legal. Then they will never lose again. We will move towards a socialist country. The only way I see this not happening is if we end up in a civil war. I don't know if that will ever happen. I guess we shall wait and see.
Too bad you can't speak to Abbott (TX) and DeSantis (FL) and tell them to do E-verify. Problem is - they want the money NOW and so admit right out (I can give you the links, but what's the use?) that their economy depends on low wages and illegal immigrants. One Texas economist put the potential losses way up in the MANY billions of dollars.
Yes, and I hope to see more environmental regulations, an end to corporate person-hood, a more progressive tax system with higher taxes on people making 1,000,000< a year, more systems to keep jobs from being simply sent to china, and military spending cuts along with us pulling out of stupid wars, and funding for High speed rail instead of highways. On social issues I would hope to see gays having the exact same rights as their straight counterparts, marijuana legalized, acceptance of (legal) immigrants (an easier path to citizenship), gun control on at least assault weapons, and for state and house of worship completely separate.
I an just going to address your statement about cuts in military spending.
Let's , for the sake of arguing,say the congress cuts military spending, and we no longer build a solid military defense for this country, in both weapons, and manpower.
Now some country decides to take on the United States here on the mainland.
How are we supposed to defend ourselves?
Now do you see how stupid your idea of cutting military spending is?
Just because the enemy is thousands of miles from us, does in no way mean they aren't a threat.
You really need to bone up on common sense.
Why do you think we fight these wars in foreign nations?
Because in most cases they pose a threat to this country, and much better to fight them there than here.
I an just going to address your statement about cuts in military spending.
Let's , for the sake of arguing,say the congress cuts military spending, and we no longer build a solid military defense for this country, in both weapons, and manpower.
Now some country decides to take on the United States here on the mainland.
How are we supposed to defend ourselves?
Now do you see how stupid your idea of cutting military spending is?
Just because the enemy is thousands of miles from us, does in no way mean they aren't a threat.
You really need to bone up on common sense.
Why do you think we fight these wars in foreign nations?
Because in most cases they pose a threat to this country, and much better to fight them there than here.
Bob.
This simply isn't true.
Is anyone going to invade China, Russia, France or the UK? Answer: NO.
Why? Well, because they have missiles, subs and nuclear weapons.
China, for example, spends VASTLY less per capita as we do on "defense". To suggest that we need to break the bank to protect ourselves is a falsehood. Period.
It's like saying that we have to spend double what others do for health care. We don't. We do it because it is a self-perpetuating circle jerk (in other words, lots of people make lots of money breaking our bank).
Our Security State, in total, costs us about 1.4 Trillion a year (long story, but this includes vets, interest on part of the debt, homeland security, nukes (DOE) and lots more beside the "defense" budget).
China, with 5X the population, spends maybe 250 Billion. So I was wrong....If they spent what we did per capita they'd be at 7 Trillion - so they spend 28X less.......
Put another way, if we spent what China does per capita we'd spend 50 Billion per year instead of 1.4 Trillion.
So you are saying....that we couldn't protect ourself with 500 or 600 Billion per year? Certainly you know that the entire nuke force updates and missiles to shoot them and subs and all that isn't even 100 billion a year.
That's basically all you need to stop any invasion of the USA.
The idea that 10 million infantry are going to land here and we'd need tanks and machine guns is ridiculous.
Too bad you can't speak to Abbott (TX) and DeSantis (FL) and tell them to do E-verify. Problem is - they want the money NOW and so admit right out (I can give you the links, but what's the use?) that their economy depends on low wages and illegal immigrants. One Texas economist put the potential losses way up in the MANY billions of dollars.
It's nice to see some bi-partisanship on a topic. Unfortunately, it's to provide a steady stream of exploitable workers to the US and it's corporations.
P.S. If you object to this however, you're racist. Oh the power of the R-word.
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.
Oh the power of the R-word.
