2016 POTUS Election Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,461
Bottom line is the way the system is now the winner of the presidency will emerge from one of the two parties and voting for a third party candidate yields nothing toward changing that. Maybe it will at some point but for now that is the way it is. V o ting for ideals has a nice ring but it is still going to be buried in the election results. You will get self satisfaction and nothing else.
Your vote won't change the outcome of this election in anyway. So really you're doing the same thing.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Your vote won't change the outcome of this election in anyway. So really you're doing the same thing.
That's correct to a point. The whole process ends up in the electoral college but if I cast a vote within the two party system it will more likely represented in the delegate process be it positive or negative than a third party vote will. Congress is so entrenched with the system that they will ensure they do not lose control of it to a third party candidate. They are in a continual battle to keep the system in place so they can have the best chance of their guy getting in.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
Voting third party sends a different message than voting Democrat. It shows the Republicans that we want a conservative but we don't consider their candidate to be one.
And it ends up giving the election to the Democrats and the most liberal candidate in the race. But idiots will keep doing that.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
And it ends up giving the election to the Democrats and the most liberal candidate in the race. But idiots will keep doing that.
Better than the idiots who take trillion dollar wars and a surveillance state from their "small" government party. As bad as the democrats are, they don't lie and manipulate their base the way republicans have.

Any level headed rat has abandoned this sinking ship, and now a bunch of crazy fascists own the party.Which is why a bunch of incompetent outsiders are defeating the entrenched politicians. Your party is so broken that the Republican Party can't get support for a republican candidate.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Better than the idiots who take trillion dollar wars and a surveillance state from their "small" government party. As bad as the democrats are, they don't lie and manipulate their base the way republicans have.

Any level headed rat has abandoned this sinking ship, and now a bunch of crazy fascists own the party.Which is why a bunch of incompetent outsiders are defeating the entrenched politicians. Your party is so broken that the Republican Party can't get support for a republican candidate.
You have a talent for the use of name calling and hurling insults. I would say it's commendable but it's really just a juvenile way of retaliating to anyone that may have a different opinion than you.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
Better than the idiots who take trillion dollar wars and a surveillance state from their "small" government party. As bad as the democrats are, they don't lie and manipulate their base the way republicans have.

Any level headed rat has abandoned this sinking ship, and now a bunch of crazy fascists own the party.Which is why a bunch of incompetent outsiders are defeating the entrenched politicians. Your party is so broken that the Republican Party can't get support for a republican candidate.
Since there are only two parties that is where the conservatives will be. I wish the Republican party was actually conservative but unfortunately only a small handful are. The majority just talk about it and then throw out Reagan's name even though they are just moderates at best. Even in the '70's the party elites were against Reagan. They favored Ford over him in '76 and tried to keep Reagan from the nomination in '80. After he became one of the most popular Presidents they talked the talk but went right back to their old ways.

But what's worse is the Dems have gone further to the left and are trying to become the Socialist party. Splitting will just give the Dems the same % they have now while dividing up the other rest between the moderate GOP and the conservatives and ensuring the most liberal nominee wins every time.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
You have a talent for the use of name calling and hurling insults. I would say it's commendable but it's really just a juvenile way of retaliating to anyone that may have a different opinion than you.
VA was the one who said "idiots will keep doing that". You're picking and choosing who to call out with predictable dishonesty.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,836
As bad as there may be they wouldn't have been worse than Obama, even Dem McCain.
The problem with the Republicans is that "not being any worse" has literally become their new norm. Rather than saying "We're better than these assholes" and then going out and proving it (which Americans have been begging them to do), the best they can offer is "Well, we won't be any worse". The problem with that philosophy is that it won't move the needle and will merely cause people to stay home and not vote, and thus all but guarantee a Democrat victory. And if the Republicans prop up yet another big government statist, they'll lose again.

And consider this: as bad as Bush and Obama have been, Hillary (in my opinion), will be ten times worse than both of them. What causes me even more grief is that she'll sit in office for two terms because Americans will be happy to have a Clinton back in the White House.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
The problem with the Republicans is that "not being any worse" has literally become their new norm. Rather than saying "We're better than these assholes" and then going out and proving it (which Americans have been begging them to do), the best they can offer is "Well, we won't be any worse". The problem with that philosophy is that it won't move the needle and will merely cause people to stay home and not vote, and thus all but guarantee a Democrat victory. And if the Republicans prop up yet another big government statist, they'll lose again.

And consider this: as bad as Bush and Obama have been, Hillary (in my opinion), will be ten times worse than both of them. What causes me even more grief is that she'll sit in office for two terms because Americans will be happy to have a Clinton back in the White House.
Indeed. And Republicans will get even worse stewing in their own shit in the meantime.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
VA was the one who said "idiots will keep doing that". You're picking and choosing who to call out with predictable dishonesty.
I don't condone that approach period regardless who is using it.. I will simply discontinue dialogue when it comes to that level.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
If the conspiracy theory is correct and Trump really is just a guy intentionally tanking the party with ridiculous rhetoric so Hillary can waltz into office, what kind of indictment is that on the Republicans that THiS is the guy that can capture their imagination.

Not a Libertarian like Ron or (sort of) Rand. Not even an evangelical fool like Huckabee. The heart of the Republican Party is won through bigotry and jingoism. Even if it's all a fraud, the fact that 30-something percent of Republicans fall for that is a horrendous failure.

Compare that to the Democrat's ideological candidate. Whose talking points are exactly the same shit liberals have been pushing for since the 90s. Social Healthcare, Reproductive Rights, Raised min. wage, etc.

The difference between the democrats and republicans is that democrats are trying the more of what they already are, and the republicans have abandoned everything they ever stood for.

I don't care how much I dislike my clumsy left hand, if the right one has gangrene it needs to be cut off.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
The problem with the Republicans is that "not being any worse" has literally become their new norm. Rather than saying "We're better than these assholes" and then going out and proving it (which Americans have been begging them to do), the best they can offer is "Well, we won't be any worse". The problem with that philosophy is that it won't move the needle and will merely cause people to stay home and not vote, and thus all but guarantee a Democrat victory. And if the Republicans prop up yet another big government statist, they'll lose again.

And consider this: as bad as Bush and Obama have been, Hillary (in my opinion), will be ten times worse than both of them. What causes me even more grief is that she'll sit in office for two terms because Americans will be happy to have a Clinton back in the White House.
I agree. Voters gave the Senate and House to the Republicans to the combat the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda and all the core of the party did was basically continue to rubber-stamp whatever Obama wants. Much of the GOP establishment are virtually moderate Democrats. They'd probably prefer Hillary over a conservative. I know they save their harshest attacks for conservatives in the party while Boehner and McConnell have routinely 'punished' conservatives by taking away committee positions because when they voted their conservative principles rather than support some BS liberal bill the leadership was pushing.

The liberals have it good. The Dems don't just pander to the radical left and then take moderate positions. They actually push through most of the far-left's agenda. But the GOP is constantly trying to move to the center which keeps getting moved further left.

And the voters are fed up with it. An unfortunate side-effect is many are so opposed to the establishment that they'll supporting any outsider candidate which explains Trump. But it shouldn't be just outsider vs insider, it should be conservative vs non-conservatives. Out of the candidates that basically just leaves Cruz, Paul, Carson and Fiorina. And the only one with any chance at the nomination is Cruz. Problem is he gets beat up as much by his own party as he does by the Dems because he has fought for conservative ideas instead of caving in to the establishment.

So even though Hillary is such a sham candidate basically expecting to be handed the nomination due to her name and because it's apparently her turn, she'll likely get elected. The Dems, whether they like her or not will unify and vote for her. And with the demographics, not to mention more on welfare, Obamacare and all the lib programs and liberal indoctrinating education system, they have a built-in majority constituency. It'll be harder and harder for any non-Dem. to win a national election from here on out.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I agree. Voters gave the Senate and House to the Republicans to the combat the Obama, Reid, Pelosi agenda and all the core of the party did was basically continue to rubber-stamp whatever Obama wants. Much of the GOP establishment are virtually moderate Democrats. They'd probably prefer Hillary over a conservative. I know they save their harshest attacks for conservatives in the party while Boehner and McConnell have routinely 'punished' conservatives by taking away committee positions because when they voted their conservative principles rather than support some BS liberal bill the leadership was pushing.

The liberals have it good. The Dems don't just pander to the radical left and then take moderate positions. They actually push through most of the far-left's agenda. But the GOP is constantly trying to move to the center which keeps getting moved further left.

And the voters are fed up with it. An unfortunate side-effect is many are so opposed to the establishment that they'll supporting any outsider candidate which explains Trump. But it shouldn't be just outsider vs insider, it should be conservative vs non-conservatives. Out of the candidates that basically just leaves Cruz, Paul, Carson and Fiorina. And the only one with any chance at the nomination is Cruz. Problem is he gets beat up as much by his own party as he does by the Dems because he has fought for conservative ideas instead of caving in to the establishment.

So even though Hillary is such a sham candidate basically expecting to be handed the nomination due to her name and because it's apparently her turn, she'll likely get elected. The Dems, whether they like her or not will unify and vote for her. And with the demographics, not to mention more on welfare, Obamacare and all the lib programs and liberal indoctrinating education system, they have a built-in majority constituency. It'll be harder and harder for any non-Dem. to win a national election from here on out.
This is a pretty solid breakdown.

Except the demographic breakdown of the Dem's rising constituency. What's killing the Republicans is their base is very very old. Which is why they tend to dominate the midterms when young people tune out.

Thanks to the liberal bent of the media and the general progressive nature of views from one generation to the next the republicans have dug their graves by taking hard stances by being very socially conservative, when the overwhelming majority of young people are socially liberal.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
This is a pretty solid breakdown.

Except the demographic breakdown of the Dem's rising constituency. What's killing the Republicans is their base is very very old. Which is why they tend to dominate the midterms when young people tune out.

Thanks to the liberal bent of the media and the general progressive nature of views from one generation to the next the republicans have dug their graves by taking hard stances by being very socially conservative, when the overwhelming majority of young people are socially liberal.
Well the country's demographics have changed. It is true the GOP base is older, but it's not just an age issue. And mid-terms, the younger voters don't turn out as much but neither have many of the minorities who showed up in record numbers when Obama was on the ballot, or when it's a national election.

As for being socially-conservative that part of being a conservative. I don't think the core GOP establishment is hard-line socially conservative, they're moderate across the board. What made Reagan successful is he drew from across the board, whether it was evangelicals, Catholics, iindependents or moderate Dems. And much of the mid-term success has been due to social conservatives as well as economic and Constitutional conservatives.

But it is true that the media and education system has swung social issues to the left. Combine that with the Dems attacks on the top 1% even though their policies are going to adversely affect the middle class and others as well. Their success has been turning out the youth vote, minorities and single women.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Well the country's demographics have changed. It is true the GOP base is older, but it's not just an age issue. And mid-terms, the younger voters don't turn out as much but neither have many of the minorities who showed up in record numbers when Obama was on the ballot, or when it's a national election.

As for being socially-conservative that part of being a conservative. I don't think the core GOP establishment is hard-line socially conservative, they're moderate across the board. What made Reagan successful is he drew from across the board, whether it was evangelicals, Catholics, iindependents or moderate Dems. And much of the mid-term success has been due to social conservatives as well as economic and Constitutional conservatives.

But it is true that the media and education system has swung social issues to the left. Combine that with the Dems attacks on the top 1% even though their policies are going to adversely affect the middle class and others as well. Their success has been turning out the youth vote, minorities and single women.
The problem with social conservatism is that it doesn't stand the test of time. Is there anyone under the age of 40 that legitimately believes that marijuana is a gateway drug? That Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded, that marriage is between a man and a woman? These are some hardline dealbreakers for undecided young voters and the Republicans have mostly rolled out the same rhetoric from the Reagan years. That's no good.

Those policies, like segregation or prohibition have long been settled and the one type of conservative they're pandering to is at the expense of their next generation of voters. The future of conservative politics is in a libertarian type alternative but there's so much difference in a liberty based mindset and old school Religious conservatism that they can't fit underneath the same tent.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
The problem with social conservatism is that it doesn't stand the test of time. Is there anyone under the age of 40 that legitimately believes that marijuana is a gateway drug? That Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded, that marriage is between a man and a woman? These are some hardline dealbreakers for undecided young voters and the Republicans have mostly rolled out the same rhetoric from the Reagan years. That's no good.

Those policies, like segregation or prohibition have long been settled and the one type of conservative they're pandering to is at the expense of their next generation of voters. The future of conservative politics is in a libertarian type alternative but there's so much difference in a liberty based mindset and old school Religious conservatism that they can't fit underneath the same tent.
I'm probably not a good one to tackle this because I fall under the religious conservative category. I do realize you can't really legislate morality, but at the same time I don't think we need to legislate immorality either.

Out of the three things you mentioned I'm in favor of two of them. I don't know the stats on whether marijuana users tend to move on to other drugs or not. So for the sake of argument let's assume it's not a gateway drug. As for abortion I'm opposed to it but realize it's the legal and no one is going to change that. Even the talk from staunch conservative politicians tends to be more about fund-raising and attracting social conservative votes than actually doing anything. But even though it's legal and will likely stay that way I don't think organizations that provide abortion 'services' need to be funded by the government, i.e taxpayers like you and me.

I also believe marriage is intended to be between a man and woman. No need for gov't to get involved and overturn centuries worth of tradition and change the meaning. If people are homosexual, so be it. If they want to live together so be it. But I don't think they need to have any legal status as married couples or for the definition of marriage to be changed. I also think if anything it should be a state issue not a federal issue. But I'd just be as fine if gov't wasn't involved in marriage on any level, homosexual or heterosexual.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
I'm probably not a good one to tackle this because I fall under the religious conservative category. I do realize you can't really legislate morality, but at the same time I don't think we need to legislate immorality either.

Out of the three things you mentioned I'm in favor of two of them. I don't know the stats on whether marijuana users tend to move on to other drugs or not. So for the sake of argument let's assume it's not a gateway drug. As for abortion I'm opposed to it but realize it's the legal and no one is going to change that. Even the talk from staunch conservative politicians tends to be more about fund-raising and attracting social conservative votes than actually doing anything. But even though it's legal and will likely stay that way I don't think organizations that provide abortion 'services' need to be funded by the government, i.e taxpayers like you and me.

I also believe marriage is intended to be between a man and woman. No need for gov't to get involved and overturn centuries worth of tradition and change the meaning. If people are homosexual, so be it. If they want to live together so be it. But I don't think they need to have any legal status as married couples or for the definition of marriage to be changed. I also think if anything it should be a state issue not a federal issue. But I'd just be as fine if gov't wasn't involved in marriage on any level, homosexual or heterosexual.
To me the crazy thing is that republicans have chosen that hill to die on. Every family in this country understands Thanksgiving rules. Don't bring up any of the controversial topics and focus on what brought everyone together. Instead they're digging up stuff that's already past. As you said, it's the law.

It seems to me that if you wanna court the next generation of republicans you gotta muddy the waters when it comes to things like that, and focus on reduction of federal spending/reduction of federal regulation, and on a strong efficient defense strategy based our national interests instead of playing world police. Those are things over half the population can come to the table for.
 

VA Cowboy

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
4,710
To me the crazy thing is that republicans have chosen that hill to die on. Every family in this country understands Thanksgiving rules. Don't bring up any of the controversial topics and focus on what brought everyone together. Instead they're digging up stuff that's already past. As you said, it's the law.

It seems to me that if you wanna court the next generation of republicans you gotta muddy the waters when it comes to things like that, and focus on reduction of federal spending/reduction of federal regulation, and on a strong efficient defense strategy based our national interests instead of playing world police. Those are things over half the population can come to the table for.
I know what you're saying but I don't think conservatives need to give up their principles and values and move to the left. But I do think it's wise to concentrate on economic, immigration and defense issues. And like they say, most are more liberal when they're young and tend to become more conservative as they get older.

Winning the youth vote is always going to problematic. And I don't think moving to the left is going to do it because in the past R's have put up more centrist candidates mainly because that is where the establishment GOP is at and strategically trying to win over independents and moderate Dems. But that has failed because it alienated much of the R's base and conservative voters and Dems/Ind's went with the Dem candidate over the Dem-lite candidate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom