George Romney ran for President.

(06-09-2014 11:57 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  The Presidency seems to be decided on charisma more than anything. There will be excitement around the first female President for Hillary, but if the Republicans choose someone more charming than Mitt Romney, they could probably overcome that.

Who that charming Republican might be? I am unsure. Pretty rough for Republicans that they cant even find someone as good as George Bush...

It isn't that the Republicans can't find anyone as good as George Bush. They have many guys better than Bush in line.

It was that Bush squeaked out a win over Gore, who was as dry as unseasoned chicken breast and we were in the midst of a recession blamed on Clinton at that time.

Then Bush ran against another Democrat that was as dry as they get in Kerry. Add to it, Kerry went off the rails towards the end of his campaign saying we needed socialist healthcare, and it was in the bag for Bush.

No one was beating Obama in 2008, for a mix of reasons.

2012, Romney was a good candidate, but our country is now broken beyond repair and it doesn't matter. Free handout voters now out number those who work and pay their own way.

So beating Hillary, despite what a disaster she is, will be nearly impossible.

(06-09-2014 12:46 PM)Sonsowey Wrote:  George Romney ran for President.

He ran for the nomination in 1968. He lost to Nixon.

As I've said before, the "natural-born citizen" thing is really up for debate. According to a variety of Supreme Court cases, a natural-born citizen is someone who is born to one or more American parents, either at home or abroad.

Technically, even if Obama were born in Kenya, he would still fulfill the requirement of being a natural-born citizen, which is why the birther debate was ridiculously stupid.

George Romney was born in Mexico to American citizens who fled the US due to the decision in Reynolds vs. United States. He was a natural-born citizen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a Cuban father and American mother. He is also a natural-born citizen.

He ran for President in...1968...and lost the primary ...so why does anyone, anywhere, care about this?

I didn't vote, I didn't like Romney and I despised Obama, I didn't realize people cared about where Romney's dad was born though. Must have been an MSNBC talking point or something.

I don't want to think about this. I prefer to be surprised by who gets to fiddle while Rome burns.

(06-09-2014 01:30 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  He ran for President in...1968...and lost the primary ...so why does anyone, anywhere, care about this?

I didn't vote, I didn't like Romney and I despised Obama, I didn't realize people cared about where Romney's dad was born though. Must have been an MSNBC talking point or something.

Some of us did time in DC and view politics as something akin to spectator sports... entertainment best consumed on moderation. It's nerdier version of the NBA Thread or the Soccer Thread.

(06-08-2014 09:07 PM)assman Wrote:  I'll definitely be stocking up on firearms related gear in advance of the 2016 election. Progressives are never going to rest until they gut the Second Amendment.

My thoughts as well. Guns are the only thing left that the liberals haven't gotten to go their way.

I'm on mobile and can't quote (wtf?) but I'll be blunt:

Vacancier Permanent is right. Don't protest it by voting. Don't protest it on the Internet. Speak with your wallet and get the fuck out.

I'm going to have to remember to turn my TV off for this. Its starting already...in some preview of an NBC interview they ask hillary "Is the whitehouse yours to lose?" Its not even pretend journalism anymore. I also don't understand how they are going to sell her personality. She exudes bitchiness...at least bush and obama had likeable personalities and had a sense of humor. Hillary on saturday night live? between two ferns?

(06-09-2014 02:24 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 01:30 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  He ran for President in...1968...and lost the primary ...so why does anyone, anywhere, care about this?

I didn't vote, I didn't like Romney and I despised Obama, I didn't realize people cared about where Romney's dad was born though. Must have been an MSNBC talking point or something.

Some of us did time in DC and view politics as something akin to spectator sports... entertainment best consumed on moderation. It's nerdier version of the NBA Thread or the Soccer Thread.

It's true. Politics today are just spectator sports.

This is for the doom and gloom crowd.

In the video I posted, Jon Huntsman brought up a new organization called "nolabels".

The website for it is: http://www.nolabels.org/.

Essentially, there is a growing number of Congressman and political people with power that are aware of the growing divide between Republicans and Democrats.

The purpose of this growing group is for Democrats and Republicans to come together in a bipartisan effort to focus on solving problems in the United States today rather than continuing the standstill that exists between the two parties.

Right now there are 72 members between the house and senate that have joined this organization that are attempting to move forward to a "party-less" problem solving effort.

The group is also coming together in an attempt to loosen the grip of wealthy interest groups.

I take this as a glimmer of hope.

(06-09-2014 01:18 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  So beating the Democrat nominee, despite what a disaster she is, will be nearly impossible.

Fixed it, doubt Hilary's going to make it past primaries. If she does, she's president. If not, whoever wins the Dem nomination.

Its going to be just like 2008 - whoever wins the Democrat nomination will be guaranteed the Presidency.

As for all the "Hilary's definitely going to win" talk, I remember reading an article in early 2007 about the 2008 election. They said that Obama would be an underdog candidate and would probably lose. They said Hilary would probably win the nomination. Heck, Obama's name was near the bttom of the list. First 3 names were Hilary, Biden and Edwards. Look who's President now.

Thing about Hilary is its too easy to AMOG her in a debate. A poster up here mentioned that she's like your mom or HR Director. Who'd want to vote for someone like that? Wait for people to vote for the candidate that promises them more free stuff than Hilary and SJWs to vote for the candidate that gets their panties wet. (Remember this video?)

(06-09-2014 07:16 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  The website for it is: http://www.nolabels.org/.

Essentially, there is a growing number of Congressman and political people with power that are aware of the growing divide between Republicans and Democrats.

The purpose of this growing group is for Democrats and Republicans to come together in a bipartisan effort to focus on solving problems in the United States today rather than continuing the standstill that exists between the two parties.

Bipartisan votes gave us the Patriot Act and got us into Iraq. No thanks.

We are better off with a standstill than with Congress acting. Every time they act, the federal government grows.

Just play this on a commercial over and over, and every guy in America will be ready to blow his brains out:

(06-09-2014 02:24 PM)Baldwin81 Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 01:30 PM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  He ran for President in...1968...and lost the primary ...so why does anyone, anywhere, care about this?

I didn't vote, I didn't like Romney and I despised Obama, I didn't realize people cared about where Romney's dad was born though. Must have been an MSNBC talking point or something.

Some of us did time in DC and view politics as something akin to spectator sports... entertainment best consumed on moderation. It's nerdier version of the NBA Thread or the Soccer Thread.

Can't disagree. Its going to be interesting considering the perspective though. History will remember Obama as a President with one too many scandals under his belt. Considering we haven't learnt anything since, it will remember the next President as the next "terrible". Sort of like how many enjoy reading about post-Aurelian Roman history and wondering "What were they thinking?".

Their platforms will also be pertinent, particularly for young cats such as myself. Will it make economic sense to stay in America? Or should I bail and move to the Mideast (high income and tax-free), reinstate my Indian citizenship (no paying taxes when I'm abroad, unlike US citizenship) and just make a bunch of trips to EE and South America whenever I want some quality pussy?

Even though its ultimately pointless, following the elections will give you some perspective of where things are headed and will help you plan accordingly.

(06-09-2014 07:30 PM)assman Wrote:  Bipartisan votes gave us the Patriot Act and got us into Iraq. No thanks.

We are better off with a standstill than with Congress acting. Every time they act, the federal government grows.

So what you are saying is that everyone should just give up and do nothing?

That seems to be the general sentiment of a lot of people on this forum.

Part of me is pessimistic too, but I live in this country and I have no plans on leaving.

I went on a trip with my uncle for a week and he talked about how the American government has gone downhill over the years. The one thing he kept repeating is that I have to exercise my right to vote. Thinking about it now, he's right.

The game might be rigged to some extent, but we still have a voice even if it is small. Better to do something rather than nothing.

If all you guys want to leave that's cool. I will stay here and build my career, vote, support my community, and support organizations that I feel are making the right choice to reform the government and help the common man.

delete

(06-09-2014 07:50 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(06-09-2014 07:30 PM)assman Wrote:  Bipartisan votes gave us the Patriot Act and got us into Iraq. No thanks.

We are better off with a standstill than with Congress acting. Every time they act, the federal government grows.

So what you are saying is that everyone should just give up and do nothing?

Not at all.

I'm saying we need to get rid of the statists. And that includes pretty much all the Democrats in office and most of the Republicans. Having those two groups find common ground, like Huntsman is trying to do, is only going to make things worse because it will mean more laws, more government, more debt, etc.

As long as the statists rule the roost, Americans would be better off if Congress sat on their hands and collected their checks for their entire term in office.

(06-09-2014 11:13 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  A lot of "experts" on this thread.

A lot of "experts" said UKIP and Front National could never win...they both won.

A lot of "experts" said Reagan's policies were stupid and that the Soviet Union would never buckle under pressure. They were wrong. Whether it was Reagan's policies, oil prices, or a combination of the two, the fact is, the experts were still wrong.

A lot of "experts" said Rand Paul would lose in his primary and then when he won that, they said, he would get trounced in the general election. They were wrong. He is now a US Senator.

A lot of "experts" said there was no economic or housing crisis in 2007. They were wrong.

A lot of "experts" on this thread say that Democrats will win for sure.
Maybe they will. But these RVF political experts are simply repeating what they've been told to think. It's a psychological tactic to demoralize you're opposition.

While I agree that Republican (establishment) politicians have been dreadful, it is precisely because they buck the ideas and platform of their supporters, who, have grown somewhat aware of this bait and switch.


Personally, I don't think Rand will win. The kitchen sink will be thrown to make sure of it. And while he won in Kentucky, a national election is more difficult considering face to face campaigning is less important and the media's ability to shape the narrative and spin the issues, still has some power, even though this ability has been declining.

I recognize that Rand, or even some obscure Democrat may win though. In the European elections that UKIP recently won, the 30 days leading up to the election saw every major newspaper run negative stories every day, and every television station was highly critical of UKIP. Yet, their support grew.

We are entering into Black Swan territory and the RVF "experts" are charlatans. You are viewing history as linear rather than cyclical.

Sure, the Republican party is basically the white party and white people are a lower percentage of the population. But as politics become more identity driven and less ideologically based whites may flock to the Republican party in droves, outnumbering the gain Democrats pick up from recent immigrants who tend to vote for who their told to vote for.

Another factor Republicans have going for them is that democrat voters might simply stay home. This happened in France, when Front National won. The Socialists simply stayed home. Obamacare, is unpopular, the economy could tank even worse, and the currency could undergo serious deflation or inflation.


In Summary:
For those "experts" on the thread who have made proclamations of "This person can't win" or "The Democrats will win and the Republican Party is finished" you may be correct. But then again, you may not be.

You could be right that Hillary won't win, though I don't think you will be. Yet what would it matter? The ratchet moves one way. Republicans are at best a respite from the madness. Ask yourself this: where is the culture, the national debt, etc. now? Where was it ten, twenty, thirty, forty, etc. years ago? Where is the trend line going? What credible means is there for turning that around by participating in the process?

As for UKIP, there are two things to say about that. Firstly, their local election results were hardly anything exciting. Secondly, despite all the fuss over the rise of the new right in Europe, Europesceptics still only account for 1/5 of the seats. UKIP pulled 1/4 of the vote in the UK. Even Nigel Farage himself wrote that when he arrived in Brussels, it was business as usual.

As for next year's election in the UK, Farage has also said that he does not expect the Euro results to translate into UK results. Even if they did, he still wouldn't be able to form government by himself, and I would think it more likely that there'd be a super-majority of the Conservatives and Labour than any real deals with UKIP. More likely, of course, would be another election until people voted the "correct" way. If/when the establishment really gets knocked off its perch in the UK or Europe, I will be a little more hopeful.

I understand the election results didn't change much. I also never said Hillary wouldn't win. I said I don't know who will win and anyone who claims they do isn't an expert. Experts are smart enough to know its too far out to tell.

With regards to UKIP, I understand the election didn't change much. My point was that the "experts" said UKIP could never and would never win a national election. They were wrong. But my point is also that the motivation of these "experts" isn't legitimate belief that UKIP is so crazy that they could never win, the point is the experts feverishly hate UKIP and their political "non-partisan" predictions are psychological demoralization of their political enemies.

This is similar to some "Hillary will win, its inevitable" commentators who are closet progressives. They claim they are simply making informed observations about the facts when the truth couldn't be further from the case. They want Hillary to win or maybe just for the Republican not to win, but they want to be perceived as non-partisan, so, they couch their cheerleading in making a statement of "fact" that Hillary's win is inevitable.

(06-09-2014 08:09 PM)assman Wrote:  Not at all.

I'm saying we need to get rid of the statists. And that includes pretty much all the Democrats in office and most of the Republicans. Having those two groups find common ground, like Huntsman is trying to do, is only going to make things worse because it will mean more laws, more government, more debt, etc.

As long as the statists rule the roost, Americans would be better off if Congress sat on their hands and collected their checks for their entire term in office.

Allow me to play spin doctor here.

Statism may be becoming more prevalent as a reaction to the growing dysfunction of the federal government at the highest levels.

If Congressmen and Senators begin to work together in a way that rises above their respective party lines and begin to resolve the dysfunction that exists in the current two party system on the federal level, statism might become less appealing as a result.

Also, think about this, the government might be growing due to how it is complete mess at the highest level and this mess cascades downwards to lower levels of government where more people are required to make the government run. If the government becomes more efficient at the top, it may make all of the levels of government beneath it more efficient as well reducing the amount of people working for the government and as a result reducing the size of the government.

Just throwing my thoughts out there.

(06-09-2014 07:37 PM)xpatplayer Wrote:  History will remember Obama as a President with one too many scandals under his belt.

Reagan had Iran-Contra (14 people got convicted on that one), debategate, and grant rigging.

Don't forget Clinton with draft dodging, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Whitewater, Lewinsky, Mogadishu, Kosovo...

Bush had invading Iraq, "the coalition of the willing", WMDs, whatever the fuck happened with him in ROTC, Guantanamo, failing to get bin Laden, 9/11 and the million conspiracies that people have tagged along with it, Katrina, DC madam scandal, Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater, the Axis of Evil, Mission Accomplished, NSA wiretapping, Wolfowitz and the World Bank, etc...

Obama has Benghazi, IRS targetting anti-tax groups, actually killing bin Laden, Guantanamo, not quite full withdrawal from Afghanistan, Obamacare, the VA, Fast & Furious, rescuing a POW, NSA wiretapping getting revealed, and Joe Biden being a big fucking deal.

The championship still goes to Richard Milhouse Nixon who first got accused of taking inappropriate funds and told everyone the only thing he took was a puppy for his kids and he wasn't giving it back. He was shady as fuck but people wrote it off until Watergate, where 69 government officials were charged and 48 were found guilty, with Nixon himself needing to get pardoned by Ford, and releasing his autobiography to raise funds to cover his remaining legal fees.

What you guys need to be asking yourself is, how will the trends in American politics impact your life, and how can they optimally benefit you? Government is expanding? Go get a government job (sorry, back breaking labor in the Dakotas isn't for everyone). Get your damn FAFSA filled out to get financial aid for school. Can't get experience in your field? Get a government internship, or utilize one of their work training programs. Get a goddamn Fulbright to subsidize your life abroad. Stop sitting around complaining about how politics makes your life miserable, and get to work making the best out of the situation. If you still feel the need to complain, write your congressman - seriously, if they're wavering on an issue and didn't co-sponsor a bill, they might be persuaded to vote for/against it if a certain amount of constituents contacts their office (which was the drop of water that caused the flood?).

Walker has my vote.

Dems fucking HATE him.

I love it.

People in here are forgetting the neat tricks the government makes to sway the sheep to the wolves.

A series of big stunts will be made to sway voters and we all know the goldfish mentality of the majority. "oh my gawd you say I'll get this for free?"

(06-10-2014 08:44 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

Walker has my vote.

Dems fucking HATE him.

I love it.

As a person, he is a total dick, a total 'any means to an end' kind of guy who would likely kill his own mother for an hour TV time on Fox. However, his accomplishments in Wisconsin is impressive. He transformed the state in one term, passing laws that made people take to the streets, literally and he did not give one fuck.

I'd vote for him, just because things would get done...despite being in constant scandal and accomplished through ethically questionable means.

You would never hear "bipartisan" or "reach across the aisle" it would be more like 'by the end of my term, abortion will be illegal, as will gay marriage, taxes will be zero, obama care will be folded and the borders will be closed...just try and stop me"