tschu Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 And Ted Cruz has no shot, much less of a shot than the Rand/Ryan Pauls, because he would get absolutely murdered in a debate. Paul and Ryan can at least sort of put the crazy into normal-sounding words and sentences every now and then, even if the meaning behind them is still complete bullsh#t Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Historically, it is rare for the same party to keep office in a non-incumbent year. It happens if the predessor was wildly popular (i.e. Reagan giving way to Bush 41), but otherwise it doesn't happen. Historically the nucleus of the republican party hasn't lost it's mind into self-serving paranoid psychosis. 4 Link to comment
Ulty Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Historically, it is rare for the same party to keep office in a non-incumbent year. It happens if the predessor was wildly popular (i.e. Reagan giving way to Bush 41), but otherwise it doesn't happen. Historically the nucleus of the republican party hasn't lost it's mind into self-serving paranoid psychosis. Very true, there are crazy new variables at play this time around! Link to comment
Saunders Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Somebody who will make a bunch of promises, fulfill about 10% of them, be in the pocket of corporations/lobbyists, and expand government powers. Link to comment
MidnightRider Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Somebody who will make a bunch of promises, fulfill about 10% of them, be in the pocket of corporations/lobbyists, and expand government powers. 10%? You sure are an optimist. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 And Ted Cruz has no shot, much less of a shot than the Rand/Ryan Pauls, because he would get absolutely murdered in a debate. I agree that Cruz doesn't have much of a shot but I disagree about how he would perform in a debate. Never underestimate the power of his type of demagoguery. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Sorry Zoogs, I disagree. We've been short changed in the office of the Presidency for as long as I can remember. Since I've been alive, there have only been two worth a sh#t- Reagan and Kennedy. All others have been some degree of suckiness. I won't say it is all the individuals fault but rather that our system just doesn't work anymore. Things are too polarized and politicized to function properly. I don't see things improving without some radical changes and I believe our citizenry is too apathetic to drive the changes that need to be made. Sure it's a tough job, but the clowns we've been electing to the position aren't helping things. If the last ten Presidents are truly the best and brightest we can get to run, Lord help us. Sincere question: what makes you say that Reagan was a good president? I liked him and he was able to bring people together and get things accomplished. He was instrumental in the fall of the iron curtain, people around the globe were hesitant to f#*k with us, and he laid the ground work for one of the greatest economic expansions in our history. I won't say every single thing he did was good or good for us but there was a feeling (for me anyway) that, no mater what came up, Ronnie would have our back and wouldn't screw the pooch. A lot of it was simply a feeling of confidence and being at ease. IMO, every other President since I have been alive has been lacking, usually severely, in some way. I was too young to really have a grasp on what Kennedy or Johnson were doing at the time, and even Nixon for that matter. But, in hindsight, I think Kennedy was decent and even certain aspects (foreign policy) of Nixon were good. Other than that, we have been scrapping the bottom of the barrel for inhabitants of the oval office. I guess it's somewhat understandable, who in their right mind would sign up for that level of scrutiny anymore? A person has to have serious character flaws to even consider running for the office in this day and age. 1 Link to comment
Landlord Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 A different question is how do you think the sentiment of Reagan would be the same or different if he was president in 2008-2014 instead of 1981 where information still traveled pretty slowly. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Historically, it is rare for the same party to keep office in a non-incumbent year. It happens if the predessor was wildly popular (i.e. Reagan giving way to Bush 41), but otherwise it doesn't happen. Historically the nucleus of the republican party hasn't lost it's mind into self-serving paranoid psychosis. Absolutely. There is no reason to think the repubs have any shot at the office this time around. If they couldn't unseat Obama in 2012, they have ZERO chance in 2016. The party is too F'd up and they have no viable candidates that can transcend the condition of the party. Plus, I believe popular opinion will be along the lines of; we've had our first black President so now it is time to break another barrier and have our first woman President. Much like a lot of the hoopla surrounding Obama was simply because of his race/color, I believe the media and public are poised to make the next election about a woman in the White House. Link to comment
tschu Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Reagan was a leader; he was also a moron when it came to spending and economics and the country will take decades to recover Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Honestly I've become so disillusioned with politics in general I don't think I care anymore. Maybe I'll end up paying attention again and vote, but probably not. I remember at one point thinking Rubio would be an reasonably decent candidate, but his anti-science convictions gross me out. Same here. I was so against Obama and all this in '08, and then again just less than a couple years ago. But my thoughts have changed pretty drastically over the past year and half. I'm not saying Obama is the greatest ever, but he sure the hell hasnt been bad either. Bottom line. I look in the mirror and ask "Is your life better or worse than in 2008?". It's frankly about the same. I couldntve asked for more or less. Hence, I dont really give a damn anymore. Just put someone in there that isnt gonna complete burn the house down. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 A different question is how do you think the sentiment of Reagan would be the same or different if he was president in 2008-2014 instead of 1981 where information still traveled pretty slowly. I don't know how Reagan would fair in todays world given all that has happened in the last 26 years. But, the speed of information would have little to no bearing on how he was perceived. Things might not have been on CNN the second they were happening in the 80's but it was far from an information vacuum. edit- And there was still some semblance of journalistic integrity in the 80's.......those days are long gone. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Reagan was a leader; he was also a moron when it came to spending and economics and the country will take decades to recover This is it. He was a leader. I believe that is what the office requires more than anything. Congress is supposed to be in control of spending and economic policy, the President is supposed to lead and be Presdential. Where are those guys/gals at nowadays? Link to comment
NUance Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Nothing in this thread has convinced me that Richard Nixon's head wouldn't be our best option. 1 Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 edit- And there was still some semblance of journalistic integrity in the 80's.......those days are long gone. Sort of like when George Will helped Reagan prepare for his debate using stolen materials . . . and then appeared on ABC as a journalist without disclosing that he was a paid political advocate? That sort of journalistic integrity? Come to think of it . . . he's still at it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts