budney
member
Criticizing government isn't criticizing America. Quite the opposite, in fact: criticizing government is defending America.
--Len
Second Republican debate
- Thread starter GoSlash27
- Start date
- Status
--Len
Then one should be careful how one throws around the word "we" all the time. And one should occasionally use positive, optimistic language in support of one's opposition idea instead of carping criticism of the status quo.
In other words, log off the computer every now and then to get a little balance in life.
In other words, log off the computer every now and then to get a little balance in life.
In both the 2000 and 2004 elections, A LITTLE OVER HALF of the country voted for George W. Bush. George W. Bush is not much better than the current moderate and left-leaning Republicans running for president.
Now, do you HONESTLY believe the Democrats are going to win over the majority that gave Bush the presidency both times by running a radical candidate like Hillary Clinton, who's way more radical than Gore and even Kerry? With Hillary, the Democrats are going way in the opposite direction that they need to go.
If the Democrats run Hillary for president, as long as the Republicans run a low-key, moderate to right-wing candidate who's sure to get the votes Bush did, the Repubs have the presidency in the bag. I bet you there'll be people running in droves to the polls to vote against Hillary.
There's still a silent, right-leaning majority that influence the polls big time. The reasons H.W. Bush and Dole lost is because Bush upset people and Dole was way too moderate.
Obama doesn't even have a chance. He's just some uppity politician who was barely elected senator. Way too ambitious and like Hillary, there'll be people voting AGAINST him. In charisma he's the polar opposite of JFK or Reagan.
Vito, I think you've been in Northern Illinois way too long.
GTSteve03
Member
I think what you meant to say was that a little over half of the registered voters who actually bothered to get out and vote that day voted for GW.
I think that works out to something like 30% of the population.
vito
Member
I don't know about you, but I oppose the so called AWB, and I don't trust Romney on gun control. 2A support is critical to me in deciding who to vote for, but merely being strong on the 2A is not necessarily enough to get my support. Despite this, sometimes you have to either choose the lesser of two evils or become irrelevant by refusing to vote at all. I like Tancredo, Hunter and so far, Fred Thompson. But if the choice is Guliani vs Clinton, or McCain vs Obama, or Romney vs either of the leading Democrats, I will still vote Republican. You Ron Paul supporters should vigorously support him in the primary, but when the Republicans choose their nominee, that is the choice you will have versus the Democrats. Maybe the best hope for gun rights supporters is if Michael Bloomberg, the fanatic anti-gun mayor of NYC really runs as an independent. That would split the liberal anti-gun vote with the Democrats, and give the Republicans a real chance to win the presidency. Against a Hilary and a Bloomberg, a real conservative could win the election. And for those of you who felt personally insulted by my earlier post about Ron Paul seeming like a kook, get over it.
Titan6
member
But he did seem like a kook. Just as Regean seemed a kook when he declared we had won the Cold War before he left office.
You can seem a kook and still be right.
You can seem a kook and still be right.
RealGun
Member
You won't get a repeat of the George Bush elections without the church people, who so far are quite unhappy with their choices. Fred Thompson is obviously the guy for a number of reasons and could win by a landslide. That wouldn't necessarily be my choice at all. I just think Thompson's chances are fantastic.
- Status