Are Conservatives self defeatist?

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by whatukno, Mar 29, 2015.

  1. whatukno

    whatukno New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I got to wonder, with people like Ted Cruiz as favorited candidates, do Republicans want to never be in the white house again?

    Because you are going further and further to the right with people who are supposed to be "centrist candidates" and are surprised at the diminishing returns.

    I'm only talking about the presidency here.

    Do you not really want a republican in the white house? My obvious picks are Jeb Bush and Carly Fiorina, very well known centrist candidates that still pull the party line without going completely bat (*)(*)(*)(*) insane. That's your shot at the white house, a successful former governor, who can easily differentiate himself from "the president who shall not be named" Jeb, has to get over his brother's bungling of the presidency, but the people in Florida that lived under his governorship democrat and republican alike are at least amicable to him. He did right by Florida overall.

    and Carly Fiorina, is a successful businesswoman who guided her company through a turbulent time for tech companies to be on top. That's a success that takes a strong person to achieve. She knows what it means to go from secretary to CEO, and on television I think could hold her own and not look stupid even under the harshest criticism.

    You're going for Ted Cruiz? That's a defeatist choice, my choice? Bush/Fiorina, (and I'll still vote against them keep that in mind) The Bush/Fiorina ticket is a damned hard one to beat. They are strong successful relatively scandal free conservatives, (though Jeb's involvement in his brother's 2000 election will come into play.)

    I think that unless Conservatives move toward the ticket I described, their chances of retaking the white house are pretty much nill.

    I think Conservatives are self defeatist because they go after social issues and find themselves on the wrong side. They fail to see that America is Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal, and that's been our hallmark throughout history even or own genesis.

    Hell, our country was founded on the liberal (at the time) idea that we should rule ourselves and not operate under a monarchy. That's a very liberal ideal in the course of human history. But we have always wanted to be fiscally conservative. We are a socially liberal people that think penny wise, and not pound foolish.

    Our forefathers came up with public schools and public libraries. Very liberal ideas. (sorry America, but pretty much the rest of the free world freed slaves before we did) But we did it.

    We are still a young country on the world stage. We are a powerful country because we spend holy (*)(*)(*)(*) amounts on our military. I mean seriously we spend more than the next 13 countries combined.

    But because of that, we are failing our own people.

    We aren't investing in infrastructure, technology, innovation, education, like we should if we are to be the best country on Earth. Instead, we are spending outrageous sums of money and American servicemen lives on wars based entirely on lies.

    We sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) need to reign in our *******ned military before some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) conservative zealot general somewhere decides to order his men to cross the Delaware and attack DC. Ask the democratic people of ancient Rome if that bull(*)(*)(*)(*) can't happen. We are marching down Rome's path, might want to ask them what's next.

    In all seriousness, we don't need to be constantly at war. We need to defend ourselves. And after the last hundred years of western interference in the middle east, you got to understand we are poking at a bees hive. Then have the audacity to wonder why we get stung sometimes.

    ISIS, is the mid east's problem, including Israel. Israel truthfully needs to learn to deal with it's neighbors without the US constantly having to have their back. (kinda part of being an independent nation instead of just a puppet.)

    We got (*)(*)(*)(*) to deal with at home. The border problem. (it's not a damn crisis) but it is a problem that needs a rational solution.
    Our education system that thanks to the GOP has had it's funding slashed time and time again limiting opportunities for individuals to
    get the education they need to be competitive in this global economy.

    We need a president that will stand with the American people and look corporations in the eye and call them on their bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

    Your a CEO, here's your logic. I can hire a dude in (anywhere) do this job at a fraction of the cost it takes to hire him here in the US.

    Then, I can import that product or service to the US and still charge the consumer the cost as it would be if the American employee did it, and keep the money in my pocket. And thanks to my team of lawyers, avoid US tax laws altogether by various tax loopholes and offshore accounts.

    And this (*)(*)(*)(*) is ok with Republicans.

    These current republicans are completely clueless about the purpose of the strategic oil reserve.

    Oh no, it goes beyond just a month's supply of oil at an instant. No, our Strategic Oil Reserve, should have always have been a conservative one, we produce none of our own till the worlds's supply is gone then we take over the world with a resource that is no longer available at such a premium price that any who wish this resource have to bend to our will in order to have it.

    We do have lots of oil in the US. Why don't we tap it? Re read the paragraph above.

    Why not drain everyone else dry at this cost? The more limited the finite resource the more valuable it becomes, therefore not taping into our own oil reserves and selling until true peak market (where you are the only game in town) becomes a long term strategic strategy.

    I ask again, are conservatives defeatist? You want to rob America of that economic boom by taping our resources before everyone else is left dry?

    Do you know what this country should have been fascist with? Our manufacturing base in this country. Especially (this)

    We pumped out bombers like tic tac's

    America did this massive awesome stuff, then failed to properly capitalize on the people of the United States to not only be consumers but the hands down overall primary manufacturers of the worlds products. Thereby making those innovators those job creators insanely wealthy in the process at the same time affording people a standard of living. And paying them enough to be able to afford your products that you price within their range and therefore you get back more than you put out which equates to profit.

    America does this but we don't build this. And that's the problem. We affordably price for the consumer, but fail to give the "consumer" the means for which to purchase your product or service. Which in turn makes small businesses struggle.

    But tax cuts help small business

    No, increasing pay helps small business. You get what you pay for, a well paid employee with benefits and job security with more scrutiny is more productive, enthusiastic, energetic, about the job no matter what it is.

    Businesses need to invest in Americans again. That's a conservative ideal.
     
    TBryant and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pssst . . . so far Ted Cruz is the only U.S. Senator who has announced his candidacy. Who the fluke else do you expect the media to talk about? Sheesh!
     
  3. whatukno

    whatukno New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the start of "Bulldungothon 2016: How bad could it possibly get?"

    When do we really start worrying about (*)(*)(*)(*) that matters, and start looking for people with the solutions to elect, instead of who the media foists upon us?

    Ok, how about speculation? John Stewart/Stephen Colbert ticket 2016!

    They got the following, the name recognition, the definitive stances on the issues, the respect, and knowledge.

    Just speculating possible outcomes, seeing what people think.
     
  4. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sure, why not. All they have to do is get the financial backing and toss their hats in the ring. The fact is that a candidate has to run first, and then the people of his or her party decide whether or not they want the mook representing them. It may not be a perfect process but it is the process.
     
  5. whatukno

    whatukno New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Do you see the flaw in the plan there?

    The We The People part? Does that sound like how a free Republic should elect it's highest officer? They tell us these are their pics and they all suck, so we have to keep weeding out jerk after moron, till we get to the (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and the turd.

    Doesn't this system seem insane to anyone else?
     
  6. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So devise a better system and then convince 300 million or so people to adopt it. Railing against what is can be fun . . . as long as one always keeps in mind that all the railing in the world is not going to alter reality by one jot. Oh there can be changes but for the most part they will simply be add-on or tweaks to the existing structure.

    I can see that one day there will be a viable third party but also that I will be dust for quite some time before that eventuality comes to fruition. I can also foresee some tweaks to make it far more difficult for someone like Barack Obama to come out of nowhere with ZERO national level experience or any history of management or leadership accomplishments and become president on a tidal wave of Mainstream Media generated campaigning efforts and millions of hysterics substituting Obamagasm producing leg tingles for intelligent thought; but then again perhaps not enough tweaks in that respect. But massive changes? Not very likely.
     
  7. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    we have enough comedians in politics as it is.. :lol:
     
  8. usfan

    usfan Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,878
    Likes Received:
    1,056
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    btw, why are you so anti cruz? What specific policies do you not like.. & not just snips from 'the daily leftist' that have caricatures of the evil enemy's positions.

    have you listened to any actual footage from him in context? or do you not like him because he is part hispanic?
    :lol:

    I have no dog in the hunt, but claiming that jon stewart would be a better president than a current senator is pretty wacky, if you ask me.

    edit.. also, since the OP is begging the question, i'll probably be leaving this soon.. false narratives are much too common on this forum, & i don't like to validate them with continued discussion.
     
  9. TBryant

    TBryant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    4,146
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Long OP there, but it sucked me in.

    The US has already gone through peak oil production. Sure, we still have offshore potential (especially north of Alaska), but all the low cost extraction oil is gone. When we get to the point of raping wilderness areas for shale deposits we will be in the global peak oil crisis. Or maybe tech will save us who knows?

    I suspect we will have a republican president pretty soon. Don't ask me why, just a gut feeling. I have lived long enough to know that the public weaves back and forth on this stuff in no logical way.

    I agree that the corporations need to start putting up or shutting up. Taxes on them have been the lowest in a century and the payoff for US citizens has been pathetic. Getting trickled down on is exactly what it sounds like in the end.

    Minimum wage needs to go up, but realistically we have to know that the days of working a production line job and raising a family are gone. Baby boomers got the tail end of that one, the rest of us need to suck it up.

    Maybe try to condense your thoughts a little, but I like your writing style.

    peace
     
  10. Cautiously Conservative

    Cautiously Conservative New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2015
    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Cruz has some name recognition, but I don't think anyone seriously thinks he's going to win the nomination. He might not even be qualified.

    I don't want another Bush. There's no reason in a nation with more than 250 million people for us to keep passing the top job to family members.

    My personal "early" pick is Walker, who has done a great deal for meritocracy and reducing the criminal labor element.
     
  11. Gatewood

    Gatewood Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2013
    Messages:
    47,624
    Likes Received:
    48,666
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I'm also a fan of Walker. Also I'd like to see what Bobby Jindal could do. What bothers me about these wannabe president U.S. Senators is that although both Cruz and Rubio are genuinely massively better educated than was Barack Obama and since they are going to be running for the presidency at the end of their VERY ACTIVE first term as senators rather than at the beginning of an essentially inactive first term they are both massively more experienced at national level politics than Barack was back in 2007; but still I choke at the notion of considering a first term Senator as being experienced enough.

    Governors? Their state jobs when they are handling deep-do are enough like the presidency on a very slow day that there's definitely a viable amount of skills set slop-over. A seasoned governor can usually be up and running in a competent manner as president within two years of his or her first term. Going into the third year of the presidency a former governor is usually competent as president; even if he or she remains a hated (fill-in-the-blank).

    Now as to the GOPer hopefulls who've never spent a day of their lives as either a U.S. senator (or representative) or governor? Nope, they are not up to the task of transitioning into the presidency because they have no practical political experience whatsoever; and dealing with the Legislative Branch REQUIRES political experience.
     
  12. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    like the Democrats are offering anyone better ? They have the Clintons and their trainload of baggage who will say or do anything to increase their wealth and power and who think the laws are for the little people. Then there is Warren, O'Malley, and Sanders who are so far left that only a hand full would vote, they have the same issues with moderates as Cruz has. Cruz is peeing in the wind as my Dad would say, the right wing talk show hosts are all in his backpocket but I am not even sure if he can win his home state in the primaries. My money is on Bush, Walker or Rubio at this stage of the game but a late surge by Santorum or Kasich is not out of the question
     
  13. After Hours

    After Hours Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Rubio has no shot. He went from being the young and relatively handsome golden boy who was supposed to woo young and hispanic voters, to becoming a complete pariah in his own party for DARING to support what the right considers "immigration inform". After that, he had no choice but to back off, and "revise" his position. It's too late though, because he's already damaged goods.

    The interesting thing about all of it though is that the new "flavor of the month" golden boy Scott Walker ALSO supports immigration reform, but for some reason, as of now at least, manages to get a free pass. Don't worry though, that will soon come to bite Walker in the ass in the near future.
     
  14. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The GOP usually goes moderate with it's Presidential candidate with predictable results. The last two GOP candidates, Romney and McCain, were both moderate centrists and both lost. The fact is, the electoral college environment doesn't look good for Republicans regardless of whether it's Jeb, Rubio, Ted, or Scott running; whoever it is, they'll be demonized by the media/DNC as extremist. Even if the Republicans resurrected John Anderson or John Lindsey from the dead, they would still be tarred as right wing crazies by the media.
     
  15. After Hours

    After Hours Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    63
    McCain lost because after the disastrous Bush presidency, no Republican was going to get elected. Palin didn't help matters either.

    As for Romney, he's a sell out who decided to pander to the far right in order to get them to vote for him. Hopefully the same thing doesn't happen to Bush or Walker.
     
  16. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So there are other factors other than a Republican being a moderate that could sabotage his chances for the Presidency? Fascinating!

    Bush was much more of a drag on the party in 2006 than 2008. McCain polled pretty close to Obama right up until the financial crisis and he "suspended" his campaign. His inability to pretend to understand what to do in that situation was when the polls went south for him. Palin had nothing to do with it.

    I'm not sure how exactly Romney was a right wing sellout. He wouldn't backtrack on Romney care. He defended it right up until the end. I don't think the right wing felt it was being pandered too. What were his panders?
     
  17. After Hours

    After Hours Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's always excuses, eh Mike? Maybe Obama defeated McCain and Romney because more American voters preferred him? I know in your hearts it's the fault of the "librul media" and "illegal aliens', and whatever else, but where was that "librul media" in 2004 when Bush barely squeaked by Kerry?

    Regardless, as history has shown us, people generally get tired of political parties after they've had control for 8 years. Chances of a GOP president winning in 2016 are pretty high, especially if it's Walker or Bush. Cruz has no shot, and would guarantee a Democrat win, and the GOP knows this, which is why they won't permit him to be the nominee.
     
  18. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not making excuses. In fact, I didn't mention anything about the "librul media." So why did you bring that up? You made the claim that McCain had no chance of winning in 2008 because...Bush. I disagreed, and you decided to totally re-write my argument. I get this time and time again from left leaning forum posters. You don't like my argument, so you pretend it was a totally different argument and respond to that. It's one of the reasons that it's difficult to discuss issues with you guys. You have a playbook and talking points and you can't handle any deviations from it.
     
  19. After Hours

    After Hours Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2013
    Messages:
    5,359
    Likes Received:
    233
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's funny Mike, because the last part of your post described many of the conservatives on this forum.

    Regardless, my mention of the "librul media" had to do with your original assertions of the Republicans being "doomed" due too the "electoral college environment", and "the media/DNC" making them out to be monsters. Where was that media in 2000 and 2004, and how did they fail miserably since Bush won twice? Or did this "librul media" suddenly appear when Obama came onto the scene?
     
  20. jackdog

    jackdog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    19,691
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    yep, that demonizing thing worked out real well for the Dems in the midterms. How many Swing States went GOP back in Nov? Right now the Dems have the anchor of Obama and his nutball foriegn policy dragging them down, majority view is predicting they have an old retread who is about as exciting as yesterdays oatmeal. Job figures from Beureau of labor be damned , people in the real world are hurting. Unless Dems can find someone that can excite more than just a bunch of over the hill feminists guess who won't be bothering to go to the polls. Dem numbers have been dropping since 2012 and they are no where near 2008 numbers
     
  21. whatukno

    whatukno New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    1,249
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting, I have to admit that I had to look up Anderson and Lindsay, and I'm wondering, which John Anderson are you referring to? The country music singer? I admit, I am a bit confused.

    I'm sure that any DNC candidate will receive just the same treatment from the Conservative Media/RNC.
     
  22. birddog

    birddog New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    Messages:
    3,601
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The MSM was quite unfair to both McCain and especially Romney. Palin actually helped, but She was not the strongest choice.

    Bush's presidency was perceived to be more disastrous than it actually was, more MSM and dishonesty of the libs not admitting that much of the woes of the Bush presidency was set up by the incompetent Clinton presidency.

    Romney was too weak in the debates and was hurt by Sandy and democrat voter fraud.

    We need a more conservative candidate that has wide voter appeal especially to the independents. Walker seems the best choice, but that could change.
     
  23. Flaming Moderate

    Flaming Moderate New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Once again I find myself agreeing with you. But being a 2016 thread, I have to ask what you would like to see the Republicans do this cycle? The Cruz tactic of ideological purity was successful in Texas, but would it work at National level? I think you are correct that the Electorial College is a heavy GOP lift under the best circumstance, but what is the alternative? If you run right, you concede the Electorial advantage, if you run center, the base might revolt. I don't see any of the present names that could unify the party. Where do you go from here?
     
  24. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well again, I didn't use the word "doomed" so please be clear that you're not quoting me since that's not what I said. What I said was the electoral college environment doesn't look good for Republicans. Democrats have 217 safe electoral votes compared to 191 for Republicans going into 2016. So there is a definite Democratic advantage all things being equal.

    I don't think the media really started to take off it's mask until after the 2004 elections, or, it really became obvious.

    First in 2000. the media pulled an October surprise the weekend before the elections re: Bush's drunk driving arrest. Newsworthy? Yes. But they didnt' have it until the weekend before the election? Ridiculous.

    And in 2004, that was the year of the "fake but accurate" National Guard memos that Rather tried to pass off, again, right before the election. Frankly, I think it would have worked since the 2004 election was pretty close. But he got exposed by bloggers so it nullified the phony story. I shudder to think how often in the past the public has been fooled by similar fake stories that went on to become part of history because there was no outlet to debunk them.

    But let's look at a more recent Presidential election, 2012. I wrote about media bias during that election here, here, and here.
     
  25. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,287
    Likes Received:
    22,667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I agree that turn out is key for Democrats, but they actually have a super competent turn out machine. They actually take people to the polls, that's a long standing Democratic tradition.

    The country sheriff would pick my grandfather up to drive him to the polls and give him a shot of whiskey for his trouble. Democratic turnout is a long standing, and successful, process.
     

Share This Page