• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Disjointed Prognostications for the GOP

I voted for Kerry, but he was a boring candidate that roused up no enthusiasm for him what-so-ever. He is a smart guy, no doubt, but he was just so dreadfully boring. If he could have been even as 50% as loose as he was at the convention this year he might have gotten people excited for him instead of just voting against Bush.

The same thing just happened with the Republicans and Romney. The energy was focused on voting out Obama instead of voting in their own candidate. That very rarely works.
 
deacvision7 said:
The same thing just happened with the Republicans and Romney. The energy was focused on voting out Obama instead of voting in their own candidate. That very rarely works.
Click to expand...

Exactly. He got 48% of the vote for not being Obama. Think if the Republicans actually had a good candidate. Unfortunately that seems in short supply
 
Definitely agree that they need to ditch the "family values" bull shit. The majority of young people are not church-going/married folks and a lot of them are pro-gay rights and other liberal social issues, which makes complete sense.

I still believe the best chance the Republican party has at restoring its trust with the American people is becoming more fiscally conservative and more socially liberal since a lot of people are this way anyways.

No one wants the government interfering with their lives, economically and socially so why not play that hand to your advantage?

I, as were many other Americans, completely dissatisfied with Obama as a president but I still didn't vote for Romney because he is neocon similar to Bush. I absolutely refuse to vote for a candidate that will expand wars overseas, we've had enough of that. I thought Obama was going to scale it back but he obviously hasn't. The drone strikes and NDAA are two big issues I have with him and I don't think it is in our best interests by any means to further continue these.

We won't see much of a difference the next 4 years, just a lot of money printing and more bitching from Boehner and the other House Republicans.

We definitely need a candidate that will attack these massive banks that are destroying our economy. And that man/woman sure as hell ain't Barry.

This country is not currently operating under a true capitalistic society, it has become a corporatist oligarchy.
 
this is why we need a more open system with more third parties. That way the far left and far right could form their own crazy parties that draw their 10% of the vote on the fringe, and occasionally get included in a coalition government, just like in Europe, but for the most part don't get in the way of getting ish done.
 
bobknightfan said:
This is an oft-used, but lazy and totally bogus excuse. John Kerry is definitely not on the list of the all-time great presidential candidates.....but he wasn't that bad. And there was certainly nothing about Kerry that was bad enough that he would not have been a preferable alternative to George W Bush, when one had the advantage of looking at Bush's four years on the job. (And before anyone replies, there is no comparison between those four years and Obama's four years. In the first place, Bush didn't have an opposition party with a strategy of 100% opposition to everything he tried to do. Bush got his tax cuts, his war, his homeland security department & his Patriot Act, etc. Bush's problems were of his own making. The country was attacked on his watch...or at least when he was supposed to be on watch. His tax cuts were ill-advised & unnecessary, and his war of choice was unnecessary. And he made no effort at all to bridge the polarization that had developed as a result of the Clinton impeachment and his questionable ascent to office.)
Click to expand...

bob, he was that bad. he couldn't even beat bush for crying out loud
 
Deacon923 said:
this is why we need a more open system with more third parties. That way the far left and far right could form their own crazy parties that draw their 10% of the vote on the fringe, and occasionally get included in a coalition government, just like in Europe, but for the most part don't get in the way of getting ish done.
Click to expand...

In this country, it's more like 25% or so on the right fringe and 15% or so on the left fringe. But I agree with your point. If we had 5-7 parties, the evangelicals/tea baggers and the occupiers would rarely, if ever, be included in a governing coalition.
 
cville deac said:
In this country, it's more like 25% or so on the right fringe and 15% or so on the left fringe. But I agree with your point. If we had 5-7 parties, the evangelicals/tea baggers and the occupiers would rarely, if ever, be included in a governing coalition.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It would be like it is now. They're necessary for the "fiscal conservatives" to govern.
 
This tweet is the best one I've seen. I really despise that the douchebag Alec Baldwin said it:
"You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win, and you have to ask which one?"
 
tumblr_md5hgxADg41qat9xfo1_500.jpg
 
RJKarl said:
This tweet is the best one I've seen. I really despise that the douchebag Alec Baldwin said it:
"You know your party is in trouble when people ask did the rape guy win, and you have to ask which one?"
Click to expand...
Guarantee he did not come up with that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top