You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Super Tuesday thread
You're not very good at analogies are you? Regan left the Democratic party because it used to be a bunch of hardliners that evolved into the modern feel good and nanny state advocates they have become today. This was in stark contrast to the message of Goldwater Republicans and the core of the GOP. While Bush has certainly deviated from the traditional GOP model, his behavior and spending is very similar to Democrats. So rather than try to cast out the neo-cons (I have never defended them and despise them as much as the most dedicated leftist) from the party, you just happen to join the party that advocates everything Bush did that pissed off the republican base. You don't see how that is completely different than Reagan leaving the Dems? There are plenty of Republicans who disagree with the war and deplore Bush's spending. If you were ever truly a Republican, you'd stay with them. I just find it peculiar when people have moments of clarity when it's the popular thing to do. Millions had such moments leading into the war in Iraq and coincidentally had them again when the war's popularity began to shift. While I can't say with any amount of certainty this applies to you, your logic for voting for Obama is extremely flawed - at least if you were ever a Republican.
Re: The Super Tuesday thread
When a party abandons the ideals that made the person be in the party, they leave. Simple as. Remember the "Reagan democrats"? Do you realize he wouldn't have won in 1980 without these people you claim "lack conviction"? Bush shit on what made the republican party great, and the party stuck its head up his ass for both of his terms. Where are all these republicans you are talking about who didn't fall for Bush's shit hook, line, and sinker? Bush was given blank checks with very little opposition, even from democrats.
I didn't leave the republican party because of Obama. I left because there are few differences between the republican party of the 21st century and the most liberal democrats. At least the democrats running who will spend money like its growing on trees will actually find the money to pay for their bullshit programs without collapsing our dollar any further. Democrats don't have a desire to sink us into wars that aren't necessary, thus saving literally trillions that can be spent elsewhere. Go take a look at Bush's recent budget. You call that conservative? Thats a budget Ted Kennedy would have proposed if he was president.
I'm willing to vote for the lesser of two evils, and that is whoever is on the democratic ticket.
Re: The Super Tuesday thread
Remember the "Reagan democrats"? Do you realize he wouldn't have won in 1980 without these people you claim "lack conviction"?
I was too young then to know, but I would guess alot of that had to do with the country & economy under Carter. Although I think Carter was partly a guy in tough circumstances, oil crisis, bad economy, then the hostage crisis. He was virtually unelectable. So Dems pretty much had to vote for Reagan. I wouldn't say McCain is as unelectable as Carter, but Bush is putting him in a tough spot, as some Republicans might end up voting Democrat or not voting at all.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: The Super Tuesday thread
Clinton getting the nomination will be enough to bring the base out to vote. The GOP knows how to get people out to vote. Combine McCain's more moderate image and he'll attract a substantial more independents than Clinton. If the election is between Clinton and McCain, and I believe it will be, McCain will be the President of the US barring any really stupid scandal on his part.
