Pages: 1 2 3

 

2013-04-08 16:47:44
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

ITT we discuss the 2014 midterm elections and 2016 presidential elections.

I think democrats are going to lose big due to the gun issue in the 2014 elections. I expect a democrat president in 2016. As I posted in DST, demographic shifts and the numbers from the last 3 elections show that presidental races are democrats game to lose rather than republicans game to win.

Last edited by Macbeth (2013-04-08 16:49:23)

2013-04-08 17:39:13
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-08 17:42:00
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6657|BC, Canada

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
Heres to hoping.

Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2013-04-08 17:42:37)

2013-04-08 17:57:20
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+682|6289|Washington St.

AussieReaper wrote:

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
They're appealing to a smaller and smaller group with the whole "rich get richer, poor get poorer" scheme our country has running atm. Whether you like it or not, the >50% wealth-wise is growing way more than 50% population-wise. They'll have to shake that as well because our country is still 1 person - 1 vote.
2013-04-08 20:54:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
I'll never vote for that carpetbagging bitch.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-04-08 21:21:23
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
I'll never vote for that carpetbagging bitch.
I'd like to see a Republican platform run on economic issues from a conservative standpoint, but the social conservatism is dead in the water. Santorum is an absolute joke, yet front runner for the GOP nominee. I mean, seriously... Why?
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-08 21:27:47
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

Not a fan of Hillary. I think her appeal is overstated. As a 23 year old she means nothing to me since I don't remember the Clinton years. I am sure voters younger than me would agree.
2013-04-09 03:38:26
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
dat reddit punditry
2013-04-09 04:19:10
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
dat reddit punditry
Awesome retort as always, zique.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-09 04:22:49
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
I want a Palin comeback - the political kind.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2013-04-09 04:24:54
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
dat reddit punditry
Awesome retort as always, zique.
'anti-science evangelism' as a major political deciding force? where do you get this bullshit from? reddit /r/science or /atheism, no doubt. most americans believe that angels exist. let's not talk about the republicans anti-scientist bent as being party-ruining. put down the dawkins book and stop thinking you know shit.
2013-04-09 04:28:35
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:


dat reddit punditry
Awesome retort as always, zique.
'anti-science evangelism' as a major political deciding force? where do you get this bullshit from? reddit /r/science or /atheism, no doubt. most americans believe that angels exist. let's not talk about the republicans anti-scientist bent as being party-ruining. put down the dawkins book and stop thinking you know shit.
Read a fucking news article once in your life.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … ?hpt=po_c2

Republicans hoping to regain the White House in 2016 would make a mistake by ignoring social issues, one of those potential candidates said Monday.

Rick Santorum, who says he's open to another White House bid and already speaks like a candidate, told CNN the GOP's focus on the economy and taxes, instead of social issues, was what led to presidential losses for the party in the last two cycles.

"That's exactly why the establishment Republicans supported Romney and McCain, because they didn't emphasize these positions, and they were going to run on one issue, which was limited government and lower taxes," Santorum said. "All of which are good things, and I support them, but I think what they showed is that they're insufficient."

And while some national Republicans say honing in on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion alienates certain demographics, Santorum argued the GOP could gain supporters by emphasizing family values.

"The issues they say need to be de-emphasized are some of the issues we can actually reach out to Latinos and engage them on when it comes to the family," Santorum said. "In the course of the campaign, I always felt the family was key."

In a speech next week to the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition, Santorum will argue that Republicans should meld economic and social issues, making the case that focusing on both is critical to scoring votes. A press release says his "remarks will focus on the future of the Republican Party and what must be done to ensure our party's future viability."

"We need someone who's willing to go out and make the case for the values that made this country the greatest country in the history of the world," Santorum said. "Weave them together in a picture that makes sense, that can talk to average Americans about the policies that will make their lives better."
That was from 15 hours ago on CNN.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-09 04:33:16
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
yes, you can look anywhere and find commentary about the republicans needing a reformed social platform. that's because romney lost the election precisely on that - his social politics, and his identity politics. but that doesn't mean anywhere that the republicans 'anti-science' bent is going to cause the party to collapse into a supermassive black hole. you're acting like america's electorate are this enlightened, pro-science rationalist utopia. most americans have many petty reservations about science; many others hold perfectly contrary views on religion and supernaturalism, in quite perfect harmony to scientific education/fact. you're acting like an outwardly religious or science-ignorant political candidate is making the nation sigh with disbelief. that's really not the case. outside of the east coast elites, the well-educated and the liberals, these issues are nowhere near as big as you think. for most of middle america, 'anti science' is not high on their problems.

the republicans reformed social platform mostly needs to accommodate new social policies and agendas that suit the racial subaltern cultures - nominally hispanics, and blacks at a very generous stretch. not 'we have to modernize and seem more pro-science'. this is reddit bullshit.
2013-04-09 04:45:52
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Commentary? Read what Santorum actually said. Ignore the political commentary. It'll make it easier for you to comprehend. Hopefully. Family values. Any idea what he could mean by that? Hint - abortion and gay rights. Why you're railing against me as if it's a science and religion divisive issue is beyond me.

And I don't think you understand how the electoral college votes determin the election if you think the "east coast elites" aren't going to decide the election. It comes down to a handful of states. Namely Florida.

Without winning Florida, the GOP can't win the presidency. Every poll out there shows that it isn't possible if Hillary runs.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-09 04:49:23
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6715

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yes, you can look anywhere and find commentary about the republicans needing a reformed social platform. that's because romney lost the election precisely on that - his social politics, and his identity politics. but that doesn't mean anywhere that the republicans 'anti-science' bent is going to cause the party to collapse into a supermassive black hole. you're acting like america's electorate are this enlightened, pro-science rationalist utopia. most americans have many petty reservations about science; many others hold perfectly contrary views on religion and supernaturalism, in quite perfect harmony to scientific education/fact. you're acting like an outwardly religious or science-ignorant political candidate is making the nation sigh with disbelief. that's really not the case. outside of the east coast elites, the well-educated and the liberals, these issues are nowhere near as big as you think. for most of middle america, 'anti science' is not high on their problems.

the republicans reformed social platform mostly needs to accommodate new social policies and agendas that suit the racial subaltern cultures - nominally hispanics, and blacks at a very generous stretch. not 'we have to modernize and seem more pro-science'. this is reddit bullshit.


Makes a good point about whos more anti-science politically.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2013-04-09 04:56:42
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253

AussieReaper wrote:

Commentary? Read what Santorum actually said. Ignore the political commentary. It'll make it easier for you to comprehend. Hopefully. Family values. Any idea what he could mean by that? Hint - abortion and gay rights. Why you're railing against me as if it's a science and religion divisive issue is beyond me.

And I don't think you understand how the electoral college votes determin the election if you think the "east coast elites" aren't going to decide the election. It comes down to a handful of states. Namely Florida.

Without winning Florida, the GOP can't win the presidency. Every poll out there shows that it isn't possible if Hillary runs.
you know about florida's education system? you really think anti-science is a huge agenda there?

and yes, i'm aware of swing-states. my point about east coast elites caring about science was that it's a narrow demographic part of american culture. florida isn't the only swing state, either. you think ohio is going to be huge on anti-science as a matter of political importance? american politics is for the most part quite happy to tussle over abortion and gay-rights.  these are issues that actually matter to a lot of typical, god-fearing americans. who are you to condescend to them and say their politics is broken because of anti-science? get off reddit.
2013-04-09 05:17:11
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6151|what

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Commentary? Read what Santorum actually said. Ignore the political commentary. It'll make it easier for you to comprehend. Hopefully. Family values. Any idea what he could mean by that? Hint - abortion and gay rights. Why you're railing against me as if it's a science and religion divisive issue is beyond me.

And I don't think you understand how the electoral college votes determin the election if you think the "east coast elites" aren't going to decide the election. It comes down to a handful of states. Namely Florida.

Without winning Florida, the GOP can't win the presidency. Every poll out there shows that it isn't possible if Hillary runs.
you know about florida's education system? you really think anti-science is a huge agenda there?

and yes, i'm aware of swing-states. my point about east coast elites caring about science was that it's a narrow demographic part of american culture. florida isn't the only swing state, either. you think ohio is going to be huge on anti-science as a matter of political importance? american politics is for the most part quite happy to tussle over abortion and gay-rights.  these are issues that actually matter to a lot of typical, god-fearing americans. who are you to condescend to them and say their politics is broken because of anti-science? get off reddit.
Swing states? It's about electoral college votes. Being a swing state doesn't matter - Ohio is a swing state, it could fall Republican and have zero impact on the election.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 … rite-sons/

Let's say Hillary Clinton is the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee and either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio is the GOP nominee.

A new poll suggests Clinton would hold double digit leads over both men in hypothetical general election matchups in their home state of Florida, the largest of the battleground states.

According to a Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday, the former first lady, former senator from New York, 2008 Democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state leads Bush, the former two-term governor of Florida, 51%-40% in the Sunshine State. And the poll indicates Clinton topping Rubio, the first term senator from Florida, 52%-41% in his home state.

Clinton has a 62%-33% favorable/unfavorable rating among Florida voters, compared to 50%-35% for Bush and 41%-34% for Rubio.
So explain how Bush, Rubio or Santorum have any hope if Clinton runs. Now add the fact that the evangelicals, such as Santorum want to push for family values even further - because it's an unwinnable position. Rubio and Bush boast that Florida is their home state but can't even topple Clinton.

Florida has a large demographic of minority voters. You know how the GOP tries to appeal to such a minority? Social / family values such as gay rights. Pushing towards anti abortion policy. That's what the evangelicals think will be a success. Read what Santorum spoke of.

Those policies did really well for Bush, helped him get reelected too. But the electorate has shifted and so has the social attitudes. Family values isn't going to win in Florida and that's why the GOP won't win the Presidency.

Until they move towards more of a conservative economic platform and less of a social conservative movement it ain't going to happen.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
2013-04-09 05:25:15
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|6673|Canberra, AUS

Cybargs wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

yes, you can look anywhere and find commentary about the republicans needing a reformed social platform. that's because romney lost the election precisely on that - his social politics, and his identity politics. but that doesn't mean anywhere that the republicans 'anti-science' bent is going to cause the party to collapse into a supermassive black hole. you're acting like america's electorate are this enlightened, pro-science rationalist utopia. most americans have many petty reservations about science; many others hold perfectly contrary views on religion and supernaturalism, in quite perfect harmony to scientific education/fact. you're acting like an outwardly religious or science-ignorant political candidate is making the nation sigh with disbelief. that's really not the case. outside of the east coast elites, the well-educated and the liberals, these issues are nowhere near as big as you think. for most of middle america, 'anti science' is not high on their problems.

the republicans reformed social platform mostly needs to accommodate new social policies and agendas that suit the racial subaltern cultures - nominally hispanics, and blacks at a very generous stretch. not 'we have to modernize and seem more pro-science'. this is reddit bullshit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

Makes a good point about whos more anti-science politically.
Good vid, but wonder what he would say post-Tea Party and the deficit hawks. A lot has changed since 2009...
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2013-04-09 05:26:03
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4253
i think you are radically over-stating their 'evangelism' and 'anti-science' basis.

fair to say that a lack of properly defined economic policy or budgeting rigour was a weak-point. not fair to say that their 'anti-science' will preclude them from ever getting elected again. that's a complete falsity.
2013-04-09 06:05:19
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,736|6736|Oxferd Ohire
florida is a swing state

and ohios gone to the winner for the past 40 years
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
2013-04-09 06:35:07
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5258|foggy bottom

Macbeth wrote:

Not a fan of Hillary. I think her appeal is overstated. As a 23 year old she means nothing to me since I don't remember the Clinton years. I am sure voters younger than me would agree.
you dont remember when you were 10?  i remember talking shit to kids in kindergarten telling them ronald reagan was my president because i thought at the time eerybody got to choose their own personal president
Tu Stultus Es
2013-04-09 06:49:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

If Hillary runs its all over before the first Republican primary. She'll be the next President.

Until the GOP lose the racist and anti-science evangelism they won't win the Presidency again.
I'll never vote for that carpetbagging bitch.
I'd like to see a Republican platform run on economic issues from a conservative standpoint, but the social conservatism is dead in the water. Santorum is an absolute joke, yet front runner for the GOP nominee. I mean, seriously... Why?
No, I won't vote for her because the bitch is from Arkansas but decided she wanted to be a New York senator instead because it was more prestigious. She didn't know anything about, or give a shit about, New Yorkers, she just used us for power. She's one of the most powerhungry people on the planet and should not be trusted.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2013-04-09 08:42:20
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5584

eleven bravo wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Not a fan of Hillary. I think her appeal is overstated. As a 23 year old she means nothing to me since I don't remember the Clinton years. I am sure voters younger than me would agree.
you dont remember when you were 10?  i remember talking shit to kids in kindergarten telling them ronald reagan was my president because i thought at the time eerybody got to choose their own personal president
I remember when I was 10 but I wasn't paying attention to politics until I was 11. Even then an 11 year old can hardly be expected to maturely understand politics. Hell most adults can't even.
2013-04-09 08:47:06
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6657|BC, Canada

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'll never vote for that carpetbagging bitch.
I'd like to see a Republican platform run on economic issues from a conservative standpoint, but the social conservatism is dead in the water. Santorum is an absolute joke, yet front runner for the GOP nominee. I mean, seriously... Why?
No, I won't vote for her because the bitch is from Arkansas but decided she wanted to be a New York senator instead because it was more prestigious. She didn't know anything about, or give a shit about, New Yorkers, she just used us for power. She's one of the most powerhungry people on the planet and should not be trusted.
Isn't that why anybody goes to new york? Its right up your alley too, doing whatever is going to benefit your carrer and life the most. You would think that you would look up to her choice.

Last edited by -Whiteroom- (2013-04-09 08:49:29)

2013-04-09 08:48:35
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

-Whiteroom- wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:


I'd like to see a Republican platform run on economic issues from a conservative standpoint, but the social conservatism is dead in the water. Santorum is an absolute joke, yet front runner for the GOP nominee. I mean, seriously... Why?
No, I won't vote for her because the bitch is from Arkansas but decided she wanted to be a New York senator instead because it was more prestigious. She didn't know anything about, or give a shit about, New Yorkers, she just used us for power. She's one of the most powerhungry people on the planet and should not be trusted.
Isn't that why anybody goes to new york?
Our government representatives are usually born and raised here. Schumer is from Brooklyn and Gillibrand is from the Hudson Valley. I don't like either of them, but at least they are from here.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard