GOP: Too Old, Too White, and Too Male?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
They need to learn to appeal to minorities.
I honestly think what it comes down to is that people these days expect government to provide for them....they depend on it so much that any threat to take programs away is a threat to their livelihood....at some point the promise of new stuff will give way to the actuality that we as country will have to pay for it....Omni-Slash
Yet the states that are overwhelming blue give more to the federal Government than they take in.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-cavnar/lessons-the-gop-needs-to_b_2087774.html
The thing people seem to forgt is that all the knuckle-dragging apes that have joined the GoP since the 1980s used to be called "Dixiecrats" once upon a time. The GoP made strange bedfellows and dominated the 80's, much of the 90s and practically all of the 00's with this cabal. It seems the time has run out for it, though. Romney didn't just get beat last night, he got obliterated. People aren't buying into this crap anymore. If the GoP doesn't change, it will become irrelevant.
Do you think Latinos will vote republican after how they have been treating them? The GOP thinks sending Latinos who came to America illegally as babies who had Jo choice and who were raised in America and no nothing of their origin country should go back. Just look at Arizona treatment of Latinos. And let's not forget about Romney's tan.helwa1988
A lot of those southern states are gaining in Hispanics, no matter how hard they try to slow it. I could see some of those states turning into swing states in the future and the GOP will have no choice but to adapt their policies
They aren't going to get more moderate. If anything they are going to end up divided in the middle. The Tea Parties are going to keep getting more radical as they lose power and lose out on things. They don't care about compromise, it's all or nothing to them.
In the next 4 years the Republican party is going to practically destroy itself because of these radicals. The good, more moderate/right leaning candidates that are far more in-touch with modern social issues are going to continue to be shunned so that the candidates that can appeal to the ridiculous radicals that only care about religion and social conservatism will be the ones getting elected.
Kind of like this campaign. Romney wasn't a radical himself, but he could pander well to the radicals and say what he needed to say to get the nomination. The fact that Rick Santorum even stood a chance was a major red flag early in the campaign.
The only thing we can really pray for is a more moderate group of conservatives with more liberal social policies (more modern ones that actually make sense) breaks away from the Republicans and can somehow take some of the more moderate Democrats with them making a viable 3rd party that can get a presence in the house/senate. I see that happening (which is an extremely long shot in itself) over the Republicans becoming more moderate.
Wasdie
I hope the current GOP destroys itself and a more moderate party emerges so we can actually get stuff done in this country again.
A lot of those southern states are gaining in Hispanics, no matter how hard they try to slow it. I could see some of those states turning into swing states in the future and the GOP will have no choice but to adapt their policiesBane_09Texas is expected to be a swing state within two cycles. The Democrats already have a ridiculously wide road to 270 electoral college points as is, but if they can turn Texas blue, they literally can't lose a presidential election anymore. America is changing, becoming more diverse, and more tolerant. The Republican party is NOT changing, is staying by and large old and white, and is becoming LESS tolerant. I'll just leave this quote from Jeff Sessions... (GOP Senator) "We can't produce enough angry white guys to stay relevant in the long term" This was the last election where you could have possibly had a guy win the presidency exclusively on the strength of the white vote, and it failed. Welcome to the new America, adapt or die, GOP.
Yes, but too bad the current party and it's mindless followers are too delusional to see that.
Spin. Obama is going to end up with 332 electoral votes. That's more than Bush ever got and he declared that the country had handed him a mandate after 2004. Democrats also actually INCREASED their number of Senate seats despite defending twice as many as Republicans this year and picked up seats in the House as well. The country sent a pretty clear message last night.People are making a bigger deal of this than the situation warrants. Obama lost states that he won last time (Bush by contrast gained some states). Also Republicans still maintain control of the House and probably will for some time.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]The problem is social issues. GOP needs to embrace more moderate notions or otherwise it will face a slow permeating death continually through the elections. If my party even thinks about trying to nominate another f*cking Santorum, or Bachmann, I will change parties.jimkabrhel
Amen.
Both parties will probably end up moderating socially. As Hispanics increase they will likely push the Democratic party in a more pro-life direction and certainly away from the current stance of the party supporting abortion "regardless of ability to pay" (i.e. tax-payer funded). Moreover the NARAL-Planned Parenthood feminists are aging rapidly.Also I doubt the Democratic Party will want a sustained conflict with the various churches of America, particularly the Catholic and Baptist Churches (which together comprise about half the nation's population) over the HHS mandate and will probably begin to back away from the mandate (with has divided Democrats anyway. Heck Senator Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal it).
I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP is forced to change its ideology by the time the midterm elections come around.
It seems like now is the perfect time for Obama to get extremely aggressive with congressional Republicans, since they will have many seats contested in 2014 whereas Obama doesn't need to campaign again for the rest of his life. If he can expose their obstructionism clearly between now and then, I think we could see them seriously back down from their ideological purity.
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Spin. Obama is going to end up with 332 electoral votes. That's more than Bush ever got and he declared that the country had handed him a mandate after 2004. Democrats also actually INCREASED their number of Senate seats despite defending twice as many as Republicans this year and picked up seats in the House as well. The country sent a pretty clear message last night.People are making a bigger deal of this than the situation warrants. Obama lost states that he won last time (Bush by contrast gained some states). Also Republicans still maintain control of the House and probably will for some time.
nocoolnamejim
Bush won more states than Obama I think. Bush won 31 states in 2004, Obama only won like 26 or so in 2008. I don't know anything about the net gains made in the Senate or House so far, but Democrats failed to take the House or get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which means for the next two years they won't be able to get much controversial stuff done). 2014 should see Republican gains in both Houses of Congress. Also Mike Pence got elected governor of Indiana.
I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what Ive seen here. Either the GOP is going to split into two separate groups, one socially liberal, one not. Or
the GOP is going to accept gay marriage, womens choice and only focus on non-social issues.
Because come on, social conservativism is a joke.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]The problem is social issues. GOP needs to embrace more moderate notions or otherwise it will face a slow permeating death continually through the elections. If my party even thinks about trying to nominate another f*cking Santorum, or Bachmann, I will change parties.whipassmt
Amen.
Both parties will probably end up moderating socially. As Hispanics increase they will likely push the Democratic party in a more pro-life direction and certainly away from the current stance of the party supporting abortion "regardless of ability to pay" (i.e. tax-payer funded). Moreover the NARAL-Planned Parenthood feminists are aging rapidly.Also I doubt the Democratic Party will want a sustained conflict with the various churches of America, particularly the Catholic and Baptist Churches (which together comprise about half the nation's population) over the HHS mandate and will probably begin to back away from the mandate (with has divided Democrats anyway. Heck Senator Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal it).
How many people actually remembered the conflict with the Caltholic church from earlier in the year when it came election time? The exit polls showed that health care was far down the list when it came to deciding factors.
While I do think there will be some modifcations to the ACA, the grand changes that might have been expected with a Romney Presidency won't happen, especially since the Senate is still with the Dems.
The fiscal cliff and economy will be far higher on the to do list than health care reform for the short term.
Agreed.I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what Ive seen here. Either the GOP is going to split into two separate groups, one socially liberal, one not. Or
the GOP is going to accept gay marriage, womens choice and only focus on non-social issues.
Because come on, social conservativism is a joke.
Shmiity
Spin. Obama is going to end up with 332 electoral votes. That's more than Bush ever got and he declared that the country had handed him a mandate after 2004. Democrats also actually INCREASED their number of Senate seats despite defending twice as many as Republicans this year and picked up seats in the House as well. The country sent a pretty clear message last night.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]
People are making a bigger deal of this than the situation warrants. Obama lost states that he won last time (Bush by contrast gained some states). Also Republicans still maintain control of the House and probably will for some time.
whipassmt
Bush won more states than Obama I think. Bush won 31 states in 2004, Obama only won like 26 or so in 2008. I don't know anything about the net gains made in the Senate or House so far, but Democrats failed to take the House or get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which means for the next two years they won't be able to get much controversial stuff done). 2014 should see Republican gains in both Houses of Congress. Also Mike Pence got elected governor of Indiana.
Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed.[QUOTE="Allicrombie"]Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio for 2016 make a pretty strong early ticket for getting the Latino vote. (not that I think they'd be able to beat Hillary.)nocoolnamejimI've seen the Rubio thing tossed around a lot. Daniel Larison, at "The American Conservative", makes a good argument that Rubio's appeal to Hispanics is a little oversold. Link I don't have the links handy, but polls actually do show that Rubio isn't particularly popular with Hispanics outside of his home state of Florida. (And Florida's Hispanics skew heavily Cuban-Hispanic, which tends to be more right leaning than the Hispanic population as a whole.) Actually I don't think Hillary would be too strong of a candidate, I think the Benghazi thing probably weakened her a bit, as has the overall situation in the Middle-East, plus she's probably too liberal and would appear too feminist for many voters. Also the Democrats probably won't win 2016, since it's pretty rare for a party to win three presidential elections in a row (last time that happened was Reagan-Reagan-Bush in the 1980s).
As for Rubio I'm not sure what degree he has appeal to Hispanics, though I think Bush (both Jeb and George W.) have done well among Hispanics and could do so again.
I've seen the Rubio thing tossed around a lot. Daniel Larison, at "The American Conservative", makes a good argument that Rubio's appeal to Hispanics is a little oversold. Link I don't have the links handy, but polls actually do show that Rubio isn't particularly popular with Hispanics outside of his home state of Florida. (And Florida's Hispanics skew heavily Cuban-Hispanic, which tends to be more right leaning than the Hispanic population as a whole.) Actually I don't think Hillary would be too strong of a candidate, I think the Benghazi thing probably weakened her a bit, as has the overall situation in the Middle-East, plus she's probably too liberal and would appear too feminist for many voters. Also the Democrats probably won't win 2016, since it's pretty rare for a party to win three presidential elections in a row (last time that happened was Reagan-Reagan-Bush in the 1980s).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="Allicrombie"]Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio for 2016 make a pretty strong early ticket for getting the Latino vote. (not that I think they'd be able to beat Hillary.)whipassmt
As for Rubio I'm not sure what degree he has appeal to Hispanics, though I think Bush (both Jeb and George W.) have done well among Hispanics and could do so again.
I don't think Hillary would be a good candidate either, but not for the reasons that you mention. I think she'll be too old in 2016. Personally, I think Jeb would be a good candidate if he had a different last name. Republicans haven't yet come to grips with the fact that the George W. years are staggeringly unpopular. Jeb running in 2016 would just allow Democrats to run against his brother's record again.[QUOTE="whipassmt"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Spin. Obama is going to end up with 332 electoral votes. That's more than Bush ever got and he declared that the country had handed him a mandate after 2004. Democrats also actually INCREASED their number of Senate seats despite defending twice as many as Republicans this year and picked up seats in the House as well. The country sent a pretty clear message last night.nocoolnamejim
Bush won more states than Obama I think. Bush won 31 states in 2004, Obama only won like 26 or so in 2008. I don't know anything about the net gains made in the Senate or House so far, but Democrats failed to take the House or get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which means for the next two years they won't be able to get much controversial stuff done). 2014 should see Republican gains in both Houses of Congress. Also Mike Pence got elected governor of Indiana.
Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed. Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans.Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed. Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]
Bush won more states than Obama I think. Bush won 31 states in 2004, Obama only won like 26 or so in 2008. I don't know anything about the net gains made in the Senate or House so far, but Democrats failed to take the House or get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which means for the next two years they won't be able to get much controversial stuff done). 2014 should see Republican gains in both Houses of Congress. Also Mike Pence got elected governor of Indiana.
whipassmt
The south has been a solid base for the GOP for years. Not new. The GOP should be concerned about increasing Latino populations, if they refuse to look to Latinos for votes.
What will Texas look like in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years. Will it still be solidly GOP?
Both parties will probably end up moderating socially. As Hispanics increase they will likely push the Democratic party in a more pro-life direction and certainly away from the current stance of the party supporting abortion "regardless of ability to pay" (i.e. tax-payer funded). Moreover the NARAL-Planned Parenthood feminists are aging rapidly.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Amen.
jimkabrhel
Also I doubt the Democratic Party will want a sustained conflict with the various churches of America, particularly the Catholic and Baptist Churches (which together comprise about half the nation's population) over the HHS mandate and will probably begin to back away from the mandate (with has divided Democrats anyway. Heck Senator Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal it).
How many people actually remembered the conflict with the Caltholic church from earlier in the year when it came election time? The exit polls showed that health care was far down the list when it came to deciding factors.
While I do think there will be some modifcations to the ACA, the grand changes that might have been expected with a Romney Presidency won't happen, especially since the Senate is still with the Dems.
The fiscal cliff and economy will be far higher on the to do list than health care reform for the short term.
The Church remembers. There is a saying that Washington thinks in years and decades, while the Vatican thinks in centuries. But this conflict will not go away until the Democrats back down and either rescind the mandate or expand the religious/conscientious objections or until the Republicans rescind the mandate when they take power (as assuredly they will some day).Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed.jimkabrhel
The south has been a solid base for the GOP for years. Not new. The GOP should be concerned about increasing Latino populations, if they refuse to look to Latinos for votes.
What will Texas look like in 4 years, 8 years, 12 years. Will it still be solidly GOP?
That may depend. I doubt the influx of Latinos will give the Democrats dominion over those states, not without the cost of changing the Democratic party. Perhaps Hispanics may one-day form their own party.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Both parties will probably end up moderating socially. As Hispanics increase they will likely push the Democratic party in a more pro-life direction and certainly away from the current stance of the party supporting abortion "regardless of ability to pay" (i.e. tax-payer funded). Moreover the NARAL-Planned Parenthood feminists are aging rapidly.
Also I doubt the Democratic Party will want a sustained conflict with the various churches of America, particularly the Catholic and Baptist Churches (which together comprise about half the nation's population) over the HHS mandate and will probably begin to back away from the mandate (with has divided Democrats anyway. Heck Senator Manchin is co-sponsoring a bill that would repeal it).
whipassmt
How many people actually remembered the conflict with the Caltholic church from earlier in the year when it came election time? The exit polls showed that health care was far down the list when it came to deciding factors.
While I do think there will be some modifcations to the ACA, the grand changes that might have been expected with a Romney Presidency won't happen, especially since the Senate is still with the Dems.
The fiscal cliff and economy will be far higher on the to do list than health care reform for the short term.
The Church remembers. There is a saying that Washington thinks in years and decades, while the Vatican thinks in centuries. But this conflict will not go away until the Democrats back down and either rescind the mandate or expand the religious/conscientious objections or until the Republicans rescind the mandate when they take power (as assuredly they will some day).The Church may remember, but people remember two. They will remember that despite serious opposition, several states approved gay marriage by statewide vote. The number of citizens who identify as religious is dropping.
The Diocese of Green Bay issued a letter not too long before the election stating that anyone who supported "intrinsically evil" things, like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research etc, could have their "souls in jeopardy".
Quote: "To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally "complicit" with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy."
How long before citizen completely disregard this kind of rhetoric?
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Actually I don't think Hillary would be too strong of a candidate, I think the Benghazi thing probably weakened her a bit, as has the overall situation in the Middle-East, plus she's probably too liberal and would appear too feminist for many voters. Also the Democrats probably won't win 2016, since it's pretty rare for a party to win three presidential elections in a row (last time that happened was Reagan-Reagan-Bush in the 1980s).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I've seen the Rubio thing tossed around a lot. Daniel Larison, at "The American Conservative", makes a good argument that Rubio's appeal to Hispanics is a little oversold. Link I don't have the links handy, but polls actually do show that Rubio isn't particularly popular with Hispanics outside of his home state of Florida. (And Florida's Hispanics skew heavily Cuban-Hispanic, which tends to be more right leaning than the Hispanic population as a whole.)nocoolnamejim
As for Rubio I'm not sure what degree he has appeal to Hispanics, though I think Bush (both Jeb and George W.) have done well among Hispanics and could do so again.
I don't think Hillary would be a good candidate either, but not for the reasons that you mention. I think she'll be too old in 2016. Personally, I think Jeb would be a good candidate if he had a different last name. Republicans haven't yet come to grips with the fact that the George W. years are staggeringly unpopular. Jeb running in 2016 would just allow Democrats to run against his brother's record again. I doubt the Democrats will gain much traction by criticizing George W. Bush 8 years after he left office, in fact they might make themselves look petty, stuck in the past and unwilling to take blame for things. Also I think Bush's reputation will improve in the long run, particularly as people start to realize that the recession is due to many things rather than being "Bush's fault".The Church remembers. There is a saying that Washington thinks in years and decades, while the Vatican thinks in centuries. But this conflict will not go away until the Democrats back down and either rescind the mandate or expand the religious/conscientious objections or until the Republicans rescind the mandate when they take power (as assuredly they will some day).[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
How many people actually remembered the conflict with the Caltholic church from earlier in the year when it came election time? The exit polls showed that health care was far down the list when it came to deciding factors.
While I do think there will be some modifcations to the ACA, the grand changes that might have been expected with a Romney Presidency won't happen, especially since the Senate is still with the Dems.
The fiscal cliff and economy will be far higher on the to do list than health care reform for the short term.
jimkabrhel
The Church may remember, but people remember two. They will remember that despite serious opposition, several states approved gay marriage by statewide vote. The number of citizens who identify as religious is dropping.
The Diocese of Green Bay issued a letter not too long before the election stating that anyone who supported "intrinsically evil" things, like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research etc, could have their "souls in jeopardy".
Quote: "To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally "complicit" with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy."
How long before citizen completely disregard this kind of rhetoric?
"completely" it shant happen. There will always be people who adhere to the teachings of the Church, just as there will always be a Catholic Church even when the Democratic Party and maybe the United States itself have ceased to exist.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] The Church remembers. There is a saying that Washington thinks in years and decades, while the Vatican thinks in centuries. But this conflict will not go away until the Democrats back down and either rescind the mandate or expand the religious/conscientious objections or until the Republicans rescind the mandate when they take power (as assuredly they will some day).
whipassmt
The Church may remember, but people remember two. They will remember that despite serious opposition, several states approved gay marriage by statewide vote. The number of citizens who identify as religious is dropping.
The Diocese of Green Bay issued a letter not too long before the election stating that anyone who supported "intrinsically evil" things, like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research etc, could have their "souls in jeopardy".
Quote: "To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally "complicit" with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy."
How long before citizen completely disregard this kind of rhetoric?
"completely" it shant happen. There will always be people who adhere to the teachings of the Church, just as there will always be a Catholic Church even when the Democratic Party and maybe the United States itself have ceased to exist.Are you Catholic? I'm just curious.
Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed. Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans. Obama won it in a wave election in 2008 by like two tenths of a percentage point and it was the first time a Democrat had won it in modern history. Expecting him to replicate his 2008 success was never going to happen. He had a convincing win last night. Again, 332 electoral votes is more than Bush ever got. And in a bad economy as well.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"]
Bush won more states than Obama I think. Bush won 31 states in 2004, Obama only won like 26 or so in 2008. I don't know anything about the net gains made in the Senate or House so far, but Democrats failed to take the House or get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (which means for the next two years they won't be able to get much controversial stuff done). 2014 should see Republican gains in both Houses of Congress. Also Mike Pence got elected governor of Indiana.
whipassmt
we've had it in the UK a few times, party refuses to modernise, splits up, more conservative remnant slowly washes away, i can really see far right ideology taking a major hit over the next couple of years and politics in the U.S start to look more european. unless the economy tanks, then it will be more fallout 3 imoplay_thegamehaha our far righties will be called left wing socialist communist by the hilarious US of A But yeah, you're right about the first part.
"completely" it shant happen. There will always be people who adhere to the teachings of the Church, just as there will always be a Catholic Church even when the Democratic Party and maybe the United States itself have ceased to exist.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
The Church may remember, but people remember two. They will remember that despite serious opposition, several states approved gay marriage by statewide vote. The number of citizens who identify as religious is dropping.
The Diocese of Green Bay issued a letter not too long before the election stating that anyone who supported "intrinsically evil" things, like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research etc, could have their "souls in jeopardy".
Quote: "To vote for someone in favor of these positions means that you could be morally "complicit" with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy."
How long before citizen completely disregard this kind of rhetoric?
jimkabrhel
Are you Catholic? I'm just curious.
Sic, Vero.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans. Obama won it in a wave election in 2008 by like two tenths of a percentage point and it was the first time a Democrat had won it in modern history. Expecting him to replicate his 2008 success was never going to happen. He had a convincing win last night. Again, 332 electoral votes is more than Bush ever got. And in a bad economy as well. Bush's states were more contiguous, contiguous state's are better than scattered states, which can isolated from each other.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Number of states won = completely irrelevant data point Democrats won virtually across the board last night. They kept the presidency, picked up seats in the Senate despite having more seats they were defending than Republicans did by a large margin and made gains in the House. They secured gay marriage legality by POPULAR VOTE in several states so that conservatives can no longer insist that it is just judicial activist courts forcing it on the country. Indiana is a red state. A Republican being elected governor is hardly a monumental achievement. Face it, Republicans lost big last night. It doesn't mean that they won't make gains in 2014 or beyond, but last night they got convincingly crushed.nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] "completely" it shant happen. There will always be people who adhere to the teachings of the Church, just as there will always be a Catholic Church even when the Democratic Party and maybe the United States itself have ceased to exist.
whipassmt
Are you Catholic? I'm just curious.
Sic, Vero.Your positions and criticisms make much more sense now. I'm guessing you agree with the Green Bay Diocese position, then.
I honestly think what it comes down to is that people these days expect government to provide for them....they depend on it so much that any threat to take programs away is a threat to their livelihood....at some point the promise of new stuff will give way to the actuality that we as country will have to pay for it....Omni-Slash
this is the truth..end of.
Obama won it in a wave election in 2008 by like two tenths of a percentage point and it was the first time a Democrat had won it in modern history. Expecting him to replicate his 2008 success was never going to happen. He had a convincing win last night. Again, 332 electoral votes is more than Bush ever got. And in a bad economy as well. Bush's states were more contiguous, contiguous state's are better than scattered states, which can isolated from each other. You kidding me? "Bush's states were better than Obama's states because of geography" is your argument now? Seriously?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Indiana is a red state, but Obama won it in 2008. The way it seems is that the South is solidifying into a Solid Base for the Republicans.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Bush's states were more contiguous, contiguous state's are better than scattered states, which can isolated from each other. You kidding me? "Bush's states were better than Obama's states because of geography" is your argument now? Seriously? Tell me then what is better to defend a bunch of scattered territories with large urban populations, or a large swath of territories? certainly the scattered territories are easier for aggressors to pick off and conquer one at a time.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Obama won it in a wave election in 2008 by like two tenths of a percentage point and it was the first time a Democrat had won it in modern history. Expecting him to replicate his 2008 success was never going to happen. He had a convincing win last night. Again, 332 electoral votes is more than Bush ever got. And in a bad economy as well.nocoolnamejim
Sic, Vero.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Are you Catholic? I'm just curious.
jimkabrhel
Your positions and criticisms make much more sense now. I'm guessing you agree with the Green Bay Diocese position, then.
Not just the Diocese, but the Church as a whole. Also votes on the issue of gay marriage have little to do with the issue of the HHS mandate.You kidding me? "Bush's states were better than Obama's states because of geography" is your argument now? Seriously? Tell me then what is better to defend a bunch of scattered territories with large urban populations, or a large swath of territories? certainly the scattered territories are easier for aggressors to pick off and conquer one at a time. We're talking about an election, not a land war.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Bush's states were more contiguous, contiguous state's are better than scattered states, which can isolated from each other.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Tell me then what is better to defend a bunch of scattered territories with large urban populations, or a large swath of territories? certainly the scattered territories are easier for aggressors to pick off and conquer one at a time. We're talking about an election, not a land war.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] You kidding me? "Bush's states were better than Obama's states because of geography" is your argument now? Seriously?nocoolnamejim
We need to start preparing for the Chinese invasion at some point
:P
[QUOTE="Omni-Slash"]I honestly think what it comes down to is that people these days expect government to provide for them....they depend on it so much that any threat to take programs away is a threat to their livelihood....at some point the promise of new stuff will give way to the actuality that we as country will have to pay for it....kingkong0124
this is the truth..end of.
Red states tend to benefit most from federal spending. How? They receive more federal money than they pay into the system. Red states complain about moochers and government dependents when, in all reality, they're a drain on the very system they complain about.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Tell me then what is better to defend a bunch of scattered territories with large urban populations, or a large swath of territories? certainly the scattered territories are easier for aggressors to pick off and conquer one at a time. We're talking about an election, not a land war. "we"? Not I.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] You kidding me? "Bush's states were better than Obama's states because of geography" is your argument now? Seriously?nocoolnamejim
We're talking about an election, not a land war. "we"? Not I. Indeed? So exactly how did we go from discussing how Obama's electoral success of 332 electoral votes (Florida pending) was a far more sweeping victory than anything Bush achieved to discussing a land war?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Tell me then what is better to defend a bunch of scattered territories with large urban populations, or a large swath of territories? certainly the scattered territories are easier for aggressors to pick off and conquer one at a time.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]"we"? Not I. Indeed? So exactly how did we go from discussing how Obama's electoral success of 332 electoral votes (Florida pending) was a far more sweeping victory than anything Bush achieved to discussing a land war? Hmm. Strategy, Bush's state's are easier to defend. They are also less likely to be affected should the sea-levels rise.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] We're talking about an election, not a land war.nocoolnamejim
On the issue of electoral college though, it should be reformed, some states have too much EV, there should be a maximum, maybe 40 or so that any state could get.
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Sic, Vero.
whipassmt
Your positions and criticisms make much more sense now. I'm guessing you agree with the Green Bay Diocese position, then.
Not just the Diocese, but the Church as a whole. Also votes on the issue of gay marriage have little to do with the issue of the HHS mandate.Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
Indeed? So exactly how did we go from discussing how Obama's electoral success of 332 electoral votes (Florida pending) was a far more sweeping victory than anything Bush achieved to discussing a land war? Hmm. Strategy, Bush's state's are easier to defend. They are also less likely to be affected should the sea-levels rise.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] "we"? Not I.
whipassmt
On the issue of electoral college though, it should be reformed, some states have too much EV, there should be a maximum, maybe 40 or so that any state could get.
Electoral votes are allocated based on population.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment