I think that their rhetoric is much better then the Democrats' if that what you mean by attitude. It always fascinates me that when polled on their opinions Americans strongly to overwhelmingly support the Democrats on policy issues, but in actual elections it's always very close. There must be something the Republicans are doing to even things back up, and attitude might be it.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why do the Democrats SUCK at picking Presidential candidates?
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think that their rhetoric is much better then the Democrats' if that what you mean by attitude. It always fascinates me that when polled on their opinions Americans strongly to overwhelmingly support the Democrats on policy issues, but in actual elections it's always very close. There must be something the Republicans are doing to even things back up, and attitude might be it.
Lemon law
Lifer
Every one is close to the source to the non Prof John illusion, but no cigar. Lets face the facts and relabel this forum title to Republicans excel at finding at finding candidates that prove to be 23.99 carat phonies.
The era of big democratic government spending really ending in 1968 with LBJ. And LBJ not only championed turn the crank, turn out social spending in profusion, LBJ also had the added stupidity of thinking he could fight historical forces in Vietnam and discovered his own failures.
And we got Nixon as a reward, who in turn spent the next four years aping the LBJ Vietnam policy with identical results. Then in 1972 Nixon ran against McGovern on the premise that McGovern was all wrong on Vietnam, and then proceeded to adopt the McGovern peace plan totally after the simple expedient of relabeling as peace with honor. And then ole Tricky Dick ran in to a slight problem with his screw everyone foreign policy when he tried to apply it to the USA. And like Waterloo, the highly similar name of watergate
was a fitting end to a megalomaniac.
But the end of big government spending was only starting when Reagan came to town, we are talking the real 23.9999 carat phony. Who can forget his treasury Secretary Stockman scream spend spend spend, as the republirats ushered in the era of spend and borrow, now responsible for almost 90% of our national debt. But at least Regan had the advisers and brains to avoid foreign quagmires.
We then spent 12 years under the Presidencies of GHB and Bill Clinton to rebuild the credit rating of the USA. And then GWB comes along with all the vices of LBJ, Reagan, and new foreign quagmires as GWB&co revived big government with a vengeance. And if Reagan was a 23.9999 carat phony, GWB qualifies for a 23.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% phony. As I recall we had a past thread on what good could be said about the Presidency of GWB, and the marine reserve off Pearl Harbor was the only thing we could find to agree on. Otherwise GWB&co has been an unmitigated disaster as has been the GOP.
Sorry jonney, GWB has been some what the education President and has taught the American people that the GOP is not to be trusted. Under what rock have you been hiding to have not learned the same lesson? Even Karl Rove who thought Lincoln as pessimist because he stated you can't fool all the people all the time, is now gone from the public pallroll.
The era of big democratic government spending really ending in 1968 with LBJ. And LBJ not only championed turn the crank, turn out social spending in profusion, LBJ also had the added stupidity of thinking he could fight historical forces in Vietnam and discovered his own failures.
And we got Nixon as a reward, who in turn spent the next four years aping the LBJ Vietnam policy with identical results. Then in 1972 Nixon ran against McGovern on the premise that McGovern was all wrong on Vietnam, and then proceeded to adopt the McGovern peace plan totally after the simple expedient of relabeling as peace with honor. And then ole Tricky Dick ran in to a slight problem with his screw everyone foreign policy when he tried to apply it to the USA. And like Waterloo, the highly similar name of watergate
was a fitting end to a megalomaniac.
But the end of big government spending was only starting when Reagan came to town, we are talking the real 23.9999 carat phony. Who can forget his treasury Secretary Stockman scream spend spend spend, as the republirats ushered in the era of spend and borrow, now responsible for almost 90% of our national debt. But at least Regan had the advisers and brains to avoid foreign quagmires.
We then spent 12 years under the Presidencies of GHB and Bill Clinton to rebuild the credit rating of the USA. And then GWB comes along with all the vices of LBJ, Reagan, and new foreign quagmires as GWB&co revived big government with a vengeance. And if Reagan was a 23.9999 carat phony, GWB qualifies for a 23.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% phony. As I recall we had a past thread on what good could be said about the Presidency of GWB, and the marine reserve off Pearl Harbor was the only thing we could find to agree on. Otherwise GWB&co has been an unmitigated disaster as has been the GOP.
Sorry jonney, GWB has been some what the education President and has taught the American people that the GOP is not to be trusted. Under what rock have you been hiding to have not learned the same lesson? Even Karl Rove who thought Lincoln as pessimist because he stated you can't fool all the people all the time, is now gone from the public pallroll.
marincounty
Diamond Member
I believe the word you are looking for is cheating (or dirty tricks).
umbrella39
Lifer
Because that is the only way simple minded fools can accept their own stupidity; to pawn it off on the other side doing it too. I like when the PJ's of the world get up on the pulpit and speak, each time they do, they bring the plague called neo-conservatism closer and closer to its inevitable end. :thumbs up; I think every one of us knows a PJ in our real lives, once the topic turns to politics they expose themselves as the Dodos they will soon become. Neo-conservatism had its chance after 9-11 and it only took them a few short years to irrevocably blow it. :laugh:
PJ: Your statement on how more Republicans voted for the 1965 Civil Rights Act than Democrats is a classical, and repeated since we've had this discussion before, example of your style of dishonesty.
By saying that, you are trying to imply that the Republicans were more in favor of advancing civil rights than Democrats. You do this with an attempted trick: ignoring the issue of Southern Democrats.
The South being democratic went back to the civil war as the party against Lincoln the first Republican president, but it had long been - including in the days of Lincoln and since - the area with the most overt racism. Whether it was battling to preserve slavery, or the KKK after the war, or 'separate but equal' in the 20th century, or blocking blacks from attending certain colleges, they were the group involved.
- When you break the groups into 'non-Southern democrats', 'Republicans', and 'Southern democrats', non-Southern Democrats voted for the 1965 bill more than Republicans. That's the relevant measure.
- The democratic party was the clear leader on civil rights. The Republicans had been content to do little more than enforce court decisions, while it was LBJ who passed the Civil Rights bill, JFK who spoke to the nation on civil rights being a moral issue as old as the bible, Truman who was integrating the military and using his recess appointment power to appoint the first black federal district judges, bypassing the racist Senators.
Clearly it was the leadership of JFK and LBJ that led to the civil rights legislation, which was not a priority for the Republicans, and every indication is that a President Nixon (1960) or Goldwater (1964) would not have introduced it.
How intellectually dishonest and partisan it is of you to try to misrepresent that history to get 'points' for the Republicans that they did not earn, by misrepresenting the history with misleadingly selective facts.
As I said, we've had this discussion before, if not more than once, so you can't use ignorance of the vote breakdown and other issues as an excuse.
Are you now going to explain to us how it was really Republicans who put a man on the moon, led the nation in WWII, and created Social Security and Medicare?
By saying that, you are trying to imply that the Republicans were more in favor of advancing civil rights than Democrats. You do this with an attempted trick: ignoring the issue of Southern Democrats.
The South being democratic went back to the civil war as the party against Lincoln the first Republican president, but it had long been - including in the days of Lincoln and since - the area with the most overt racism. Whether it was battling to preserve slavery, or the KKK after the war, or 'separate but equal' in the 20th century, or blocking blacks from attending certain colleges, they were the group involved.
- When you break the groups into 'non-Southern democrats', 'Republicans', and 'Southern democrats', non-Southern Democrats voted for the 1965 bill more than Republicans. That's the relevant measure.
- The democratic party was the clear leader on civil rights. The Republicans had been content to do little more than enforce court decisions, while it was LBJ who passed the Civil Rights bill, JFK who spoke to the nation on civil rights being a moral issue as old as the bible, Truman who was integrating the military and using his recess appointment power to appoint the first black federal district judges, bypassing the racist Senators.
Clearly it was the leadership of JFK and LBJ that led to the civil rights legislation, which was not a priority for the Republicans, and every indication is that a President Nixon (1960) or Goldwater (1964) would not have introduced it.
How intellectually dishonest and partisan it is of you to try to misrepresent that history to get 'points' for the Republicans that they did not earn, by misrepresenting the history with misleadingly selective facts.
As I said, we've had this discussion before, if not more than once, so you can't use ignorance of the vote breakdown and other issues as an excuse.
Are you now going to explain to us how it was really Republicans who put a man on the moon, led the nation in WWII, and created Social Security and Medicare?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
