• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans Presidential Campaigns

Personally, I simply could not vote for Romney based on his personality and constantly revolving positions.....basically I did not trust the man on a deep level.
I also could not vote for Obama, partially due to loyalty to my party but also due to many of the reasons Romney lost my vote.

I wasted my vote on a third party candidate who seemed a better fit for my stance.

Currently my loyalty to the GOP has faded completely due to the "New Breed" of Republicans basically deciding they do not want me in "Their" party anymore...I am far from alone in this, and am sadly watching the possible death of a once great institution. It makes me angry.

You'll have a good chance to return in 2016 as Jeb Bush will be ther Republican nominee and next President of the United States - he is pretty much the opposite of everything you disliked in Romney/Obama and for that matter, everything Hillary Clinton is not as well.
 
You'll have a good chance to return in 2016 as Jeb Bush will be ther Republican nominee and next President of the United States - he is pretty much the opposite of everything you disliked in Romney/Obama and for that matter, everything Hillary Clinton is not as well.

I don't know if I can ever vote for another Bush....
 
I don't know if I can ever vote for another Bush....

I feel your pain although Jeb was a good and popular governor in Florida. I met him at a charity golf outing. He had a firm handshake, looked you in the eye, pretended to care about what you were saying and seemed to be a nice guy. I think though that I am over Republicans more than I'm over Bushs. The problem is that leaves Democrats and I'd rather take an ass whipping than vote for one of them.
 
So what's your point?

I've simply said that more blacks came out to vote than ever before and they came out to vote for the first black person to ever be a major party nominee for the Presidency. If you dispute that, prove me wrong. Tossing all this irrelevant chum into the water doesn't help to make your point clear, if you actually have one.
Actually I'm trying to figure out what your point is...

Blacks have overwhelmingly voted for Dems for Decades. Lots of records were set in 2009. You're pointing out facts that every informed voter already knows? So what's the relevance or purpose of your posts?

You're also doing a ridiculous amount of whitewashing of Romney's negatives, as if you can't fathom why people didn't vote for Romney. The multitude of flaws Romney and his campaign had have been well documented and many of them you've tried to trivialize. So what's the point of you posting?

You clearly think Romney was perfect and it's not up for discussion to you. And you think Blacks overwhelming voted for Obama because he's black despite trends saying otherwise. You're not here to discuss anything so might I recommend you utilize the Blog feature next time?
 
I don't know if I can ever vote for another Bush....

You will, and you'll do it gladly. That's an order :lol:

You may not always have agreed with every action they took, but it's hard to deny that President's Bush 1 and 2 were honorable men and served the Office of President and their country with that sense of honor, both in the position they held and in the way they conducted themselves as men. And Jeb Bush is a very honorable and intelligent man who seeks common ground for the common good and isn't fixated on his own persona. He'll be a terrific President.
 
You'll have a good chance to return in 2016 as Jeb Bush will be ther Republican nominee and next President of the United States - he is pretty much the opposite of everything you disliked in Romney/Obama and for that matter, everything Hillary Clinton is not as well.

Care to make a wager on that?
 
You'll have a good chance to return in 2016 as Jeb Bush will be ther Republican nominee and next President of the United States - he is pretty much the opposite of everything you disliked in Romney/Obama and for that matter, everything Hillary Clinton is not as well.

I could vote for Jeb....one of the few moderates available, and yet to be tainted with Tea.

Unfortunately, he will likely be prevented from candidacy by the new party...and thus I will not be allowed to vote for him.
 
I don't bet on good things I wish will happen. But I feel pretty confident.

It is better to bet on the opposite of what you want. It is like a hedge.
 
I could vote for Jeb....one of the few moderates available, and yet to be tainted with Tea.

Unfortunately, he will likely be prevented from candidacy by the new party...and thus I will not be allowed to vote for him.

He's got it all, including the multicultural mixed family that is so part of America today. He's just the type of transformational candidate that Obama never was. And he's got the rock solid personal convictions that you don't need to poll and test in the wind. He's authentic and will appeal to a large part of the Republican party and beyond. Not enough people really know him yet, but as he enters the race and the debates and people see him as a serious, even temptered adult, people will be drawn to what he offers.
 
True, but the opposite of Jeb Bush is something America doesn't need after 8 years of Obama.

I must think about the opposite of jeb bush for a bit.
 
I don't bet on good things I wish will happen. But I feel pretty confident.

Well if you feel confident, let's make a wager. I feel absolutely sure you're wrong. I'm willing to make a wager on it.
 
Well if you feel confident, let's make a wager. I feel absolutely sure you're wrong. I'm willing to make a wager on it.

Hardly seems like a fair wager - I get Jeb Bush and you get 330 million other Americans, give or take about 4 or 5 live former Presidents who can't run. Tell you what, I'll take Jeb Bush and you take someone else, any political persuasion, and we'll go head to head.
 
Hardly seems like a fair wager - I get Jeb Bush and you get 330 million other Americans, give or take about 4 or 5 live former Presidents who can't run. Tell you what, I'll take Jeb Bush and you take someone else, any political persuasion, and we'll go head to head.

But YOU said Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee and that Jeb Bush was going to be President of the United sates. Shall I repost your quote in case you forgot? Sounds like you aren't as confident as you think. Was it just internet bravado getting to you?
 
I read this article The Republican Party's Talent Gap - Alex Roarty - The Atlantic. The last presidential election surprised me. It seemed to me the Republicans were on the defensive not pro-active in the media. I could not believe they ran Romney. The Republican's don't seem to have that WOW factor. They didn't put out a lot that would sway Democrat's to their side. Romney said today he would not be a contender in 2016, he felt it would help Democrats win. D.C. Notebook: Why Mitt Romney won

the last 2 elections they did the same the democrats had tried in 04 with horrible results,they ran a candidate so moderate yet so mediocre that they stood out at nothing.moderates can easily win an eletion,but mediocre robots who try to please everyone never will.
 
the last 2 elections they did the same the democrats had tried in 04 with horrible results,they ran a candidate so moderate yet so mediocre that they stood out at nothing.moderates can easily win an eletion,but mediocre robots who try to please everyone never will.

That, and when your entire campaign message is "vote for me because I'm not him," that's not a winning strategy. Killed Kerry in '04, and killed Romney in '12.
 
That, and when your entire campaign message is "vote for me because I'm not him," that's not a winning strategy. Killed Kerry in '04, and killed Romney in '12.

i have to agree,but vote for me because im not him falls into extreme mediocrity
 
i have to agree,but vote for me because im not him falls into extreme mediocrity

I'm surprised that Romney went that route because he actually had a record he could have run on but chose not to do so.
 
But YOU said Jeb Bush was going to be the nominee and that Jeb Bush was going to be President of the United sates. Shall I repost your quote in case you forgot? Sounds like you aren't as confident as you think. Was it just internet bravado getting to you?

Gee, do you insist on a bet for every opinion you see expressed on the internet? Okay, to ensure you don't emotionally suffer I will bet that Jeb Bush will be the nominee and the next President of the United States. You're giving me 330 million to one odds, I presume - so I'll bet a dollar against your $330 million - deal?
 
I'm guessing the Dems are hoping that the GOP will base their thinking on a 2016 candidate along the lines of those who believe Romney lost because he was too moderate, didn't appeal to the base. That's definitely the way to guarantee a Dem in the WH for a third straight term in a row. It's about living in the political reality, like the Dems going for a charismatic centrist like Obama, rather than a proto-socialist like Kucinich; select the electable.

I've no idea who the GOP might select in 2016, but I'm guessing the Dems will be hoping for someone like Rafael 'Ted' Cruz, Piyush 'Bobby' Jindal or Scott Walker.
 
What I want to see is how many votes Obama gets in the next election. Many of his supporters are so blinded by his smile they will miss that he isn't running, and many who are aware he isn't will see it as an afront to their rights and personal freedom, site that the Constitution is old, and vote for him anyway.
 
That's a pretty convenient cop-out that doesn't have a lot of evidence to back it up.

1. The first two years of Obama's Presidency, he had a majority of Democrats in both the House and Senate and yet he could get very little done. Republicans for the most part voted in favour of the just under $1 trillion stimulus package adopted in January/February 2009, in Obama's first 60 days in office and Obama and his administration proceeded not to use it on "shovel ready" projects because they couldn't apparently find any and spend a great deal of it on bribing state governments to retain teachers/police/firefighters and other public service employees with stimulus monies even though after a year or so that money dried up and state governments were left to hold the bag and layoff many of these workers anyway - smarter states saw through the scam and refused the money with strings attached.

2. Obama "delegated" healthcare reform to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - who proceeded to totally botch it on partisan lines and then when Obama deigned to meet with Republicans, he famously ignored them and petulantly told John McCain "I won the election". He's been in campaign mode every day of his time in office.

3. Every initiative Obama has begins with a campaign style tour whose sole purpose is to through up straw men, claim the Republicans are evil supporters of those straw men, and then rail against the obstructionist Republicans. If I was a Republican legislator, I'd tell the asshole to go shove it. In 2010, after the Obamacare debacle, the American people told Obama to shove it by overwhelmingly returning the House to Republicans and that's where it's going to stay - the Senate may very well follow suit this year if the Republicans forget to shoot themselves in the foot this time. Unlike Clinton, when the country told him they didn't like the direction he was taking and turned the House over to Gingrich and the Republicans, Obama choose to double down on name calling and bad mouthing the very people he needed to get anything done. Clinton worked with congress after the people spoke, Obama didn't. He's too good to work with congress - they must bow to him - well, that has gotten Obama and the country pretty much nowhere.

Reagan had a history of working with a Democrat legislature in California - Clinton had a history of working with Republicans in Arkansas - Bush had a history of working with Democrats in Texas - Romney had a history of working with a Democrat legislature in Massachussetts - Obama had a history as a community organizer who couldn't organize his own closet on the federal level. That's the problem.


It wasn't two years. the only period that the Democrats actually had 60 votes in the senate was from September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown was seated. That's about 4 months.

The Democrats also technically had 60 votes in the senate from July 7. 2009 when Al Franken was seated until August 26th when Sen Kennedy died. Although, Kennedy was ill and wasn't able to cast a vote after April 2009. Not that it mattered, because the Senate was in summer recess.
 
It wasn't two years. the only period that the Democrats actually had 60 votes in the senate was from September 25, 2009 (when Paul Kirk was appointed to replace Kennedy) to February 4, 2010 when Scott Brown was seated. That's about 4 months.

The Democrats also technically had 60 votes in the senate from July 7. 2009 when Al Franken was seated until August 26th when Sen Kennedy died. Although, Kennedy was ill and wasn't able to cast a vote after April 2009. Not that it mattered, because the Senate was in summer recess.

Absolutely nothing you've posted here counteracts the points I made in my post - that's to be expected, because you can't counter the truth.
 
Absolutely nothing you've posted here counteracts the points I made in my post - that's to be expected, because you can't counter the truth.

I assumed that you conflated majority in the senate with the 60 votes necessary to get anything done.


But if you want to have your "Truth" invalidated. I'll start with your first assertion
CanadaJohn said:
Republicans for the most part voted in favour of the just under $1 trillion stimulus package adopted in January/February 2009

The only Republicans to voting for the stimulus package were: Collins (R-ME), Snowe (R-ME), and Specter (R-PA) (who changed parties shortly thereafter). No Republicans voted for the stimulus in the house.

Three of ~218 is for the most part?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29obama.html?_r=0
List of Republicans who voted for Obama’s Stimulus | The RINO List
 
Back
Top Bottom