Why no decent Republican candidates?

wintermile · May 30, 2013

Creech said:
What would be the point?

Those determined to do so are respectful.

Regardless of ethnicity, those who are not allotted encouragment and/or are shunted their expression toward community input are racially exploited for the fact they are poor. The point is to stop the componded effect induced by those living within the communities and from those living outside of the communities.

"Don't treat poverty. End it"

Some solutions are straightforward and bold:

An Example

Citymart.com

The Heap

Citymart.com

Poor individuals who do not take for granted the respect shown to them, their families or those in their communities build reliable social relations.

ChristOurCaptain · May 30, 2013

TheYoungTurk said:
If they had learned from their mistakes than McCain and Romney never would've gotten past the primaries.

What's wrong with McCain? Other than his disastrous choice of running mate...

Rion · May 30, 2013

ChristOurCaptain said:
What's wrong with McCain? Other than his disastrous choice of running mate...

McCain's never met a conservative he didn't hate or a liberal he wouldn't cross the aisle for.

TheBear · May 30, 2013

Yoder777 said:
Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

The way I see it, the media helps build up a candidate among the Republican candidates. They make him/her seem likable and likely to win the presidential election. After the candidate rises to the top and becomes the one candidate remaining, after the primaries, they begin to lower the boom on that same candidate.

I could be wrong. Maybe none of that occurs. That's just how I see it.

abysmul · May 30, 2013

Rion said:
McCain's never met a conservative he didn't hate or a liberal he wouldn't cross the aisle for.

He always seemed more interested in being the center of attention, he seems to NEED the left to like him.

Rion · May 30, 2013

abysmul said:
He always seemed more interested in being the center of attention, he seems to NEED the left to like him.

He seems to have a very fragile ego.

Thunder Peel · May 30, 2013

Christian7PraiseJesus said:
Yeah, Thunder Peel, Dallas so good? Then why are people protesting not getting healthcare

Health Care Hecklers Meet With Perry | The Texas Tribune

"The protest, orchestrated by the Texas Organizing Project, was meant to highlight the state’s refusal to expand Medicaid despite having the largest uninsured population in the country."

"protesters infiltrated a ballroom at the downtown Hilton Austin Hotel, where Perry was speaking before a gathering of the “2013 Global Business Summit” being put on by his office. They heckled him repeatedly, chanting in English and Spanish,"

"...the Texas Medical Association and Texas Hospital Association, have also encouraged lawmakers to reform the program and find a politically feasible way to draw down the federal funds.

...5.8 million Texans without insurance"

Yeah, you rejected them and closed down many, many healthcare sites.

No availability for healthcare for 5.8 million in Texas, doesn't sound so good now does it? Largest amount of uninsured in the COUNTRY. And you Republicans rejected those medicaid dollars so you would just let them the poor die.

The Democrats are the only ones trying to improve ANYTHING and fix anything, conservatives would rather let people starve, beg on the streets, and DIE.

No one is dying in the streets here. Just in the Arlington area alone we have dozens of medical offices and clinics that anyone can go into and sign up for. I find it interesting that you claim to know so much about a city in which you don't live and may never have visited. Even the illegals here get healthcare and can get treatment from any hospital. You still didn't answer my initial question: which Democrat-run city is free of poverty, hate, and greed? You might want to prove that Democrats are the superior party (as you clearly seem to believe) instead of making blanket statements. My guess is that you've never met a Republican or talked to one. Many in my church would be considered conservative and yet we have ministries that embrace the large Latino and Chinese population, including classes and services that are given in their language. We have a local shelter that aids the poor in getting food, clothing, and healthcare when they have nowhere else to go. I was there over Christmas and everyone I talked to left happy and feeling loved. Does any of that imply racism and hate to you?

Your naive idea that somehow the Bible encourages a socialist approach to taking care of the poor is sadly misinformed. Jesus was not advocating a large government caring for the people; He was calling the church to stand up and work together to reach out to the poor and needy. The local churches here are constantly holding events and clinics to help those in need; I saw the same thing happen with my previous church in Wisconsin. We held yearly medical and dental clinics that aided thousands of needy people in our community.

All of us desire a world of peace and fairness. However, the Bible clearly states that we won't see that in this life. It's something to strive for but your idea that more government will somehow rid the world of its ills is naive and only setting you up for disappointment. The local churches and citizens can (and are) doing more for each other than any federal organization. You want people who have better healthcare? Allow the private sector to grow and hire more workers, thereby allowing them more benefits and the salary to provide for their families as the needs arise. Your basic "one size fits all" legislation cannot fix all of the country's problems, nor will it come cheaply.

HorsieJuice · May 30, 2013

Rion said:
He seems to have a very fragile ego.

I've read that this is actually true of a significant number of politicians and that, by-and-large, they're an especially needy bunch. The constant need for attention and affirmation leads these people to seek power and popularity.

Mariposa36 · Jun 1, 2013

Gary Johnson (the libertarian candidate) was the most pro-life candidate on the ballot. He was for ending the wars and not getting into new ones, defunding embryonic stem cell research, abortion providers, Monsanto and other big corrupt corporations, (well, he was against defunding a lot of things, but those are most relevant to this topic.) He was against the death penalty, and was for promoting competition in the healthcare industry which would have driven down costs and made it more affordable and accessible. He was also for limiting abortions to pre-quickening and was all for counseling and parental notification. His support for private industry would have led to the development of cleaner energy (crucial for protecting all human and other forms of life.)

I voted for him, but he only got like 1.2% of the vote.

ThatRobGuy · Jun 1, 2013

HalfoffSale said:
Speaking of the primaries, why can't we have any candidates that vary on anything? Those debates went on for 17 months, yet the candidates views were almost identical so we learned nothing and had no debate and had no real choice. Of course, when a party member does have a differing opinion, like being for gay marriage, he's literally kicked out of the GOP party. It feels like they're trying to sell people a brand rather than creating a brand appealing to people.

In all fairness, both major parties are guilty of this. Both are an established brand. One is pre-built around appealing to secular folks and people under 25, the other is pre-built around appealing to Christians and older people.

It's not random coincidence that the 18-25yo age group and atheists are always a lock for the dems, and that fundamentalist Christians are always a lock for the repubs.

Those 2 brands have been around for years and years, neither has made great strides in building or creating anything new to appeal to voters, both major parties are the equivalent to rich kids who inherited their votes from their forefathers. There's enough letter-voters (People who vote R or D right down the line without researching) that a person could basically come from obscurity, put their name on the ticket with an R or D next to it, and they'd already have a voter base by default. I propose that if there were a local election and there was a republican running unopposed, a random person could sign up, throw their name on the ticket with a "D" next to it, and lock in the majority of the 18-25 demographic with little to no effort.

The only groups that are truly making an attempt at doing any kind of "building", are the Libertarians, Green Party, and Constitution Party...however, they get crushed on a fairly regular basis.

ThatRobGuy · Jun 1, 2013

Christian7PraiseJesus said:
Because being against abortion is against women controlling their bodies...

Not in all cases...

I oppose it because I oppose irresponsibility and the notion that everyone should have to chip in to finance other people's irresponsibility.

People love to trot out the notion that the pro-choice movement is really about giving women a safety net in cases of rape and their health being in danger...and while it does provide those things in rare cases, to make that the entirety of the justification is being vastly dishonest about what the procedure is actually used for in the real world.

Take a look at the stats if you ever have a free moment. < .5% of abortions are for cases of rape and health, almost half of abortions (46%) are in cases where contraception wasn't used, and of those, one third are repeat customers (people who know first-hand what happens when you have sex without protection, but did it again anyway)

Democrats for

progress,

Progress is a generic term, please be specific

unions,

Why is that a good thing?

aid to the poor,

Aiding the poor would be creating opportunities, not fostering their dependence on the government.

equality,

There's a difference between treating people as equals, and trying to enforce economic equalizers...there's more to equality than just trying to make sure that everyone has the same amount of money.

public/college education,

Obama has a lower education:welfare spending ratio that Bush did...are you saying Obama's the odd man out for the party?

technology

Hmmm....the unions are always complaining that technology is the enemy of their organizations by automating jobs performed by people. How can the blue party be both for the unions, and for the element of society (tech) that would severely reduce unionized jobs? Either they haven't done their research, or they're working in direct opposition to their own agenda.

space program,

Great, they spend more money on collecting moon rocks than they do assisting local levels of law enforcement, then they complain about crime and blame segments of their opposition for crime problems.

improvement

...this is another one where you'll need to be more specific

They're also anti-war and anti-death penalty

you're joking right?

and for guns to disappear.

Great, you set up your own trap and walked right into it (saves me the time from having to set it ^_^

)

Obama (and his administration) has said on numerous occasions that his agenda is in no way going to threaten the rights of gun owners and that he has no intentions of stripping them of their firearms...he's even said on one occasion "the 2nd amendment is important to this nation and we have no intention of taking that right away from law-abiding citizens"

So, that leaves us with a couple possible conclusions on this one
A) You're mistaken on your assessment of this one
B) You're correct and the democrats are liars

Which is it?

IanCG · Jun 1, 2013

Yoder777 said:
Why can't there be a Republican presidential candidate who is strongly pro-life without just paying lip service to the religious right, who cares about fiscal responsibility while also protecting the poor and vulnerable, who doesn't want to start more needless wars, and who doesn't show contempt for minorities, young people, and women? Such a candidate would have easily had my vote. If you think Romney deserved your vote, Google "Romney" and "Stericycle."

Because they'll lose.

Received · Jun 2, 2013

Jeffwhosoever said:
You want Hillary now, or in 2016 I mean?

Hillary 2016 will be dominated by Warren 2016.

HorsieJuice · Jun 2, 2013

Received said:
Hillary 2016 will be dominated by Warren 2016.

Speaking as someone who voted for her, Elizabeth Warren isn't going to get past the Senate.

jgarden · Jun 2, 2013

Yoder777 said:
I honestly believe that there may have been a conspiracy in the Republican primaries that prevented better candidates like Ron Paul from receiving the nomination.

Either way, they should have offered a better alternative to Obama rather than just expecting that anyone could win against him, no matter how bad.

Does anyone honestly think that a "libertarian" could garner enough votes to lead the "conservative" faithful out of the "political wilderness?"

Despite being rebuffed by the American electorate in 2008 ansd 2012, the conservatives refuseal to even acknowledge significant changes in the demographics of the American electorate verges on political suicide.

Women, visible minoritires, young and urban voters which form the base of the Democratic Party are all projected as growing sectors within the American electorate for the forseeable future, while the core of the GOP (men, "whites," older and rural voters) are all on the decline.

As the economy recovers, the conservatives will be under even more pressure to introduce dramatic policy changes - or face political extinction!

As for why the Republicans are having difficulty attracting decent candidates, what ambitious young politician would view the GOP in its current state as an attractive alternative?

Mariposa36 · Jun 2, 2013

jgarden said:
Does anyone honestly think that a "libertarian" could garner enough votes to lead the "conservative" faithful out of the "political wilderness?"

Despite being rebuffed by the American electorate in 2008 ansd 2012, the conservatives refuseal to even acknowledge significant changes in the demographics of the American electorate verges on political suicide.

Women, visible minoritires, young and urban voters which form the base of the Democratic Party are all projected as growing sectors within the American electorate for the forseeable future, while the core of the GOP (men, "whites," older and rural voters) are all on the decline.

As the economy recovers, the conservatives will be under even more pressure to introduce dramatic policy changes - or face political extinction!

As for why the Republicans are having difficulty attracting decent candidates, what ambitious young politician would view the GOP in its current state as an attractive alternative?

The GOP is a mess. More and more women, youth, urban voters, and even traditional conservatives and neoconservatives are moving towards the libertarian party. We are the fastest growing party! Wooo hooo! :clap:

Personally, I'm a 20-year-old white female and definitely not a democrat, although, I am more concerned for the social justice-type issues compared to some of my libertarian friends. Once more people get to know the LP, it will pick up steam. I mean it's the perfect combination -- we're more liberal than some democrats, yet more fiscally conservative than the republicans. Gary Johnson won reelection as gov. of New Mexico (a place that votes 2-1 democrat.) He got that 1.2% through utilizing social media and only private donations. That's still pretty incredible! Some of us want him to run again while others have high hopes for libertarian-minded republicans (like Rand Paul) getting the GOP nomination. Something deep down inside of me says he won't get it, but I'm still :pray:

he does.

Rion · Jun 2, 2013

Received said:
Hillary 2016 will be dominated by Warren 2016.

I'm sure the fact that, if you nominate her, you will be insulting American Indians will do wonders for your chances

Received · Jun 2, 2013

Rion said:

That's a great summary of how a lot of my posts probably look to you.

I'm sure the fact that, if you nominate her, you will be insulting American Indians will do wonders for your chances

Snooki at a philosopher's conference.

Rion · Jun 3, 2013

Received said:
That's a great summary of how a lot of my posts probably look to you.

Snooki at a philosopher's conference.

AKA Warren at the debates.

Why no decent Republican candidates?

Bioconservative

Augsburgian Catholic

Annuit Cœptis

NON-WOKED

Board Game Hobbyist

Annuit Cœptis

You don't eat a peacock until it's cooked.

HorsieJuice

Guest

Member

Part of the IT crowd

Part of the IT crowd

IanCG

Guest

True love waits in haunted attics

HorsieJuice

Guest

Senior Veteran

Member

Annuit Cœptis

True love waits in haunted attics

Annuit Cœptis

Similar threads