• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservatives lose either way.

Paschendale said:
To be fair, we couldn't get a liberal nominated or elected in 2008, either. This country likes moderates. Bush was an abberation, not the norm. Moderates likes Obama and Romney are what the country wants. I suppose the majority feels that rocking the boat is the most dangerous thing of all right now. And I think it's fair to say that people who feel really strongly about either liberal or conservative ideas are actually in the minority. Most people are moderates, who don't want extreme solutions to our problems. They don't want Laissez Faire economics, or really progressive socialism, or strict religious morality, or a completely permissive culture. They want something in the middle. We here at DP are unusual in that we care so much. We are the vocal minority. As much as we wish the rest of the country would rally behind our banners and get passionate, they won't. They want moderates so that their lives won't suddenly get more complicated.

So no, conservatives won't lose either way, because conservatives are regular working stiffs, not "real conservatives" who obsess about their guns and the right to totally and completely control their property. And liberals won't lose either way, because liberals are also regular working stiffs, not "real liberals" who want to solve everyone's problems and make everyone get along perfectly all the time. Liberals and conservatives are the left and right side of moderate. And they don't care that much. They'll be fine under Romney or Obama. They weren't so fine under Bush, since Bush was not moderate. And they probably wouldn't be so fine if I were president, either, since I am certainly not a moderate. Actually, the majority of Americans probably wouldn't vote for any of us. We're all fairly extreme.

The silent majority will be fine. It's the vocal minority (us) who will get upset.
Click to expand...

I think Bush was quite moderate.

He did things that pissed off the Democrats...things that pissed off the Republicans...things that made the Democrats happy...things that made the Republicans happy.


Now, calling Obama a moderate...well, nothing he's done meets the characteristics I've listed above. He's only made the Democrats happy and pissed off the Republicans. Perhaps he seems moderate to you because you come from the socialist side...what most Americans would consider the fringe, eh?
 
Last edited:
If the Republicans win the House and Senate, victory is secured no matter what happens in the presidential election. Obama would be castrated for four years, or Romney would have to play by their rules. Win-win.

The economy will improve because private industry and the market love gridlock in government.
 
Erod said:
If the Republicans win the House and Senate, victory is secured no matter what happens in the presidential election. Obama would be castrated for four years, or Romney would have to play by their rules. Win-win.

The economy will improve because private industry and the market love gridlock in government.
Click to expand...

Those are good points. It's very difficult for a tyrant like Obama to prosper. He was stopped in 2010, but the damage had been done by that congress. When we consider all the people on food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and those who had to retire early because of layoffs, it doesn't look good for Obama.
 
Erod said:
If the Republicans win the House and Senate, victory is secured no matter what happens in the presidential election. Obama would be castrated for four years, or Romney would have to play by their rules. Win-win.

The economy will improve because private industry and the market love gridlock in government.
Click to expand...

According to Gallup, gridlock in government is investors' number one worry. Politically Divided Federal Gov't Worries U.S. Investors
 
jonny5 said:
Well, Republican doesnt equal conservative, but the country is better off with Romney than Obama. Beyond that, there no way to predict the succes of the GOP.
Click to expand...

Yes, the country is way better off with a rich man enforcing pre-recession tax policies. Nothing like watching to middle class get weaker and the rich getting richer to clarify the endless support for Romney.

Republican doesn't equal conservative? I smell a desperate man willing to elect a liberal leaning moderate to beat Obama. That my friend is called doing whatever it takes. You essentially support Obama if you support Romney, their leadership styles are almost identical in terms of actual implemented policies, minus their taxation beliefs. The difference of course is one man is willing to flip-flop repeatedly to appeal to his hard-line base...good luck in the general. Also, it makes me ponder what your real problem with Obama is considering Mitt Romney is his identical, wealthy clone.

Don't worry about the general election, I don't see any mathematical way Mitt Romney can beat Obama. Republican support is down from 2008 and that was a landslide victory for Obama. InTrade has Obama's re-election prospects at 60%, Romney at 30%. Obama beats Mitt Romney 6-1 in Latino support and 45%-20% in registered women support, these are numbers you just don't recover from. Romney may indeed close the gap but considering we are only eight months out from the election with conservatives still looking for the Romney alternative, I don't see a miracle happening here.
 
Last edited:
rcart76 said:
By the way, that's good that you are preaching to me about my partisan glasses. But in return I would challenge you to give that same speech to your fellow conservatives on this board. Everything that Obama does is evil in you guys eyes. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Not in my eyes. I support Obamacare. It'll need tweaking, but its time has come.

I do tend to agree with you on the whole, though. If one has "conservative" or "liberal" listed as their Lean, it's highly unlikely we're going to see rationality. Yer lil' self included. ;) Maybe you're young enough -- maybe there's hope!!!
 
Neal N. Bloeme said:
Those are good points. It's very difficult for a tyrant like Obama to prosper. He was stopped in 2010, but the damage had been done by that congress. When we consider all the people on food stamps, unemployment, welfare, and those who had to retire early because of layoffs, it doesn't look good for Obama.
Click to expand...

So your saying people will kick the man out of the white house who is willing to provide them these food stamps, unemployment, and welfare? That would be a pretty far stretch wouldn't it? Your conservative friends around here would think differently.
 
muciti said:
Using a politically biased source to prove a politically biased viewpoint by a politically biased person......seems legit.
Click to expand...

Gallup is politically biased?

Wow. From the guy who accuses others of seeing everything through politically tinted lenses! :lol:
 
Last edited:
rcart76 said:
Okay let consider the options here.

1) Romney Beats Obama - You completed your short term goal of getting Obama out of the office. Now you replace him with a guy you don't even like but your hate for Obama is so strong that you will sacrifice republican values to get him out of office. However, this will eliminate your chances of getting the conservative president you want like Bush, Daniels, or Christie in the office for eight years.

2) Obama is re-elected - This is probably making you throw up right now thinking about it. You will have to tolerate him for another 4 years.


Bottom line, regardless of your choice, your party is still screwed for at least 4 years.
Click to expand...

This not the way I look at President Obama. I don't hate him, so those are your words. In my humble opinion, President Obama is Peter's Principle. He had no experience except at as community organizer in Chicago. He was a Senator for 2 years and mostly voted present. He was a professor. That's it.

Romney has been a governor of a state. Romney was/is a businessman. He has much more experience and doesn't need the OJT that President Obama does. With the problems we are facing we need someone in the WH that doesn't need to be trained and Romney has that in spades.

I believe people vote according to their personal condition at the time of the elections. And Repubs will vote Romney because they believe 4 more years of President Obama and his team of of professors is something the country can't afford.
 
Last edited:
Billy the Kid said:
This not the way I look at President Obama. I don't hate him, so those are your words. In my humble opinion, President Obama is Peter's Principle. He had no experience except at as community organizer in Chicago. He was a Senator for 2 years and mostly voted present. He was a professor. That's it.

Romney has been a governor of a state. Romney was/is a businessman. He has much more experience and doesn't need the OJT that President Obama does. With the problems we are facing we need someone in the WH that doesn't need to be trained and Romney has that in spades.

I believe people vote according to their personal condition at the time of the elections. And Repubs will vote Romney because they believe 4 more years of President Obama and his team of of professors is something the country can't afford.
Click to expand...

So let me get this right, you would rather vote for a man who has taken multiple sides of multiples issues? What does that tell you? America cant afford and honest man like Obama, but we can afford a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney who supported clone Obama policies as governor? Your argument makes no sense. For a man with such "great" experience he sure did support our current "rookie" presidents policies quite often. This is the problem I have with Romney. He wouldn't be so bad in public opinion if he didn't come across as doing whatever it takes to get elected. You cant be for Obama care week and be against it the other. This man is so obsessed with appealing to his extreme base he has totally lost sight of the REAL people who decide elections, independents and hispanics. This is the core problem with the "new" republican party. It's going to be extremely hard for this party to win any election with such high expectations of their candidates. An ideal candidate needs to be able to appeal to independents, he will always be guaranteed his base in the long run.
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
From what I remember conservatives were crucial in stopping several of Bush's proposals, like immigration reform. Unfortunately on some other things, liberals went along with him which conservatives spoke out against, like medicare part d and bailouts.
Click to expand...

Where was the tea party when Bush was racking up the debt? Those voices were very minimum becaus eyour guy was in office. Obama couldn't even get sworn in before tea parties started rallying against him. Conservatism is hypocritical bull****.
 
Billy the Kid said:
This not the way I look at President Obama. I don't hate him, so those are your words. In my humble opinion, President Obama is Peter's Principle. He had no experience except at as community organizer in Chicago. He was a Senator for 2 years and mostly voted present. He was a professor. That's it.

Romney has been a governor of a state. Romney was/is a businessman. He has much more experience and doesn't need the OJT that President Obama does. With the problems we are facing we need someone in the WH that doesn't need to be trained and Romney has that in spades.

I believe people vote according to their personal condition at the time of the elections. And Repubs will vote Romney because they believe 4 more years of President Obama and his team of of professors is something the country can't afford.
Click to expand...
Would it be far to say that Obama now has more experience than Romney? Romney has governor experience. Obama has presidential experience.
 
SypherAL said:
So let me get this right, you would rather vote for a man who has taken multiple sides of multiples issues? What does that tell you? America cant afford and honest man like Obama, but we can afford a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney who supported clone Obama policies as governor? Your argument makes no sense. For a man with such "great" experience he sure did support our current "rookie" presidents policies quite often. This is the problem I have with Romney. He wouldn't be so bad in public opinion if he didn't come across as doing whatever it takes to get elected. You cant be for Obama care week and be against it the other. This man is so obsessed with appealing to his extreme base he has totally lost sight of the REAL people who decide elections, independents and hispanics. This is the core problem with the "new" republican party. It's going to be extremely hard for this party to win any election with such high expectations of their candidates. An ideal candidate needs to be able to appeal to independents, he will always be guaranteed his base in the long run.
Click to expand...

I want someone with the capability to govern and IMHO, experience far out ways, OJT. President Obama has proved to me, he hasn't the chops nor the ability. He's had 4 years and we are deeper in debt, and I don't see anything getting better.

Now if you feel your are better off today, then you vote for him. I think that most voters will make up their minds the day before they cast that vote and they will ask that question and will vote the answer.
 
rcart76 said:
Would it be far to say that Obama now has more experience than Romney? Romney has governor experience. Obama has presidential experience.
Click to expand...

Experience counts. I'm looking for a little more than OJT experience. I just don't feel I can vote for another 4 years of President Obama learning how to be a president.

The US is in dire straits. We have high unemployment. More people on govt assistance than ever before. More debt than ever recorded in hisgtory. Lost our credit rating as a country. You see I'm not better off today than I was 4 years ago, and I will vote accordingly.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Watch the GOP nominate Sarah Palin if they end up with a brokered convention.
Click to expand...

Christmas in August for Democrats.

That film on HBO probably killed the last of a very very tiny chance she may have had. One of the scariest films every made.
 
haymarket said:
Christmas in August for Democrats.

That film on HBO probably killed the last of a very very tiny chance she may have had. One of the scariest films every made.
Click to expand...

actually that helps the GOP.
 
haymarket said:
Christmas in August for Democrats.

That film on HBO probably killed the last of a very very tiny chance she may have had. One of the scariest films every made.
Click to expand...

Really? I see it just more of Hollywood brainwashing of folks that had little to start with in the beginning.
 
SypherAL said:
Yes, the country is way better off with a rich man enforcing pre-recession tax policies. Nothing like watching to middle class get weaker and the rich getting richer to clarify the endless support for Romney.

Republican doesn't equal conservative? I smell a desperate man willing to elect a liberal leaning moderate to beat Obama. That my friend is called doing whatever it takes. You essentially support Obama if you support Romney, their leadership styles are almost identical in terms of actual implemented policies, minus their taxation beliefs. The difference of course is one man is willing to flip-flop repeatedly to appeal to his hard-line base...good luck in the general. Also, it makes me ponder what your real problem with Obama is considering Mitt Romney is his identical, wealthy clone.

Don't worry about the general election, I don't see any mathematical way Mitt Romney can beat Obama. Republican support is down from 2008 and that was a landslide victory for Obama. InTrade has Obama's re-election prospects at 60%, Romney at 30%. Obama beats Mitt Romney 6-1 in Latino support and 45%-20% in registered women support, these are numbers you just don't recover from. Romney may indeed close the gap but considering we are only eight months out from the election with conservatives still looking for the Romney alternative, I don't see a miracle happening here.
Click to expand...

i smell rhetoric
 
rcart76 said:
Where was the tea party when Bush was racking up the debt? Those voices were very minimum becaus eyour guy was in office. Obama couldn't even get sworn in before tea parties started rallying against him. Conservatism is hypocritical bull****.
Click to expand...

Youre just proving my point. The tea party was a result of Bush's (the govts) support for housing bailouts, which Obama intensified. And Obama was sworn in (January 2009) before the tea party came about (March 2009).
 
haymarket said:
I would love to hear that explanation.
Click to expand...

I don't want to put words in TD's mouth.... but I agree with him and here is why:

Sarah Palin was woefully unquallified to be on the Presidential ticket in '08. She has proven this fact over and over. Her nomination by the RNC would make an easy target for the Dems.
If Santorum gets the nod, Obama wins by a "Reagan'esqe" landslide... That would pale in comparison to what would happen if Sarah Palin got it, it would be the biggest landslide loss in the history of the Nation.
 
muciti said:
If America rejected conservatism we wouldnt have so many of them in offices around the country.
Click to expand...

They're not rejecting conservatism, they're rejecting neo-conservatism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual conservatism. Neo-conservatism is a fiscally-liberal, religiously-wingnut position that has nothing whatsoever to do with actual conservatism. The core of real conservatism is small-government and keeping the government out of people's lives. That doesn't sound like anything the Republican party has done in decades, does it?
 
Cephus said:
They're not rejecting conservatism, they're rejecting neo-conservatism, which has nothing whatsoever to do with actual conservatism. Neo-conservatism is a fiscally-liberal, religiously-wingnut position that has nothing whatsoever to do with actual conservatism. The core of real conservatism is small-government and keeping the government out of people's lives. That doesn't sound like anything the Republican party has done in decades, does it?
Click to expand...
so much truth packed into just four sentences
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom