The Next President of the United States: II

JR249 · December 18, 2014, 12:52pm

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Problem with this oft repeated mantra is the evidence is to the contrary. Consistently.[/quote]

I’ll guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

So where are you seeing evidence that a socially conservative candidate could prevail in the general election, on a national level, for an office such as the POTUS?

Look what happened to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock in 2012, and there was some polling data that showed that Romney was damaged by the falsified “war on women” mantra that the Democrats successfully concocted in 2012. Many younger voters are also shaped by gay marriage (which largely isn’t even a federal presidential issue) positions and immigration, each of which are social issues for mutually exclusive reasons.

The only counterargument that I could see being valid is that elections are determined ultimately by who shows up to vote, this is true. So if the more socially moderate to liberal voters were, by some stroke of luck, to have record low voter turnout rates, with a subsequently higher margin of socially conservative voters, then sure, mathematically the GOP could pull it off. However, given the last two presidential elections, I don’t personally see that as being very likely, especially given the ground game that the democrats have been able to wage in key Congressional districts in core electoral states such as OH, PA and FL.

NickViar · December 18, 2014, 5:08pm

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
What really is needed is to remove all money from politics. All national elections should be financed solely by public funds. I will gladly fork over an extra $30/year to keep all private, and especially corporate, funds out of it. Remove that and watch these whores we have in Washington now run to the private sector. We might then get some representatives who actually give a shit about their constituents.
[/quote]

There may be no better way to completely remove any idea that the U.S. government is legitimate. Was that your intention?

Aragorn · December 18, 2014, 5:20pm

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Problem with this oft repeated mantra is the evidence is to the contrary. Consistently.[/quote]

I’ll guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

So where are you seeing evidence that a socially conservative candidate could prevail in the general election, on a national level, for an office such as the POTUS?

Look what happened to Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock in 2012, and there was some polling data that showed that Romney was damaged by the falsified “war on women” mantra that the Democrats successfully concocted in 2012. Many younger voters are also shaped by gay marriage (which largely isn’t even a federal presidential issue) positions and immigration, each of which are social issues for mutually exclusive reasons.

The only counterargument that I could see being valid is that elections are determined ultimately by who shows up to vote, this is true. So if the more socially moderate to liberal voters were, by some stroke of luck, to have record low voter turnout rates, with a subsequently higher margin of socially conservative voters, then sure, mathematically the GOP could pull it off. However, given the last two presidential elections, I don’t personally see that as being very likely, especially given the ground game that the democrats have been able to wage in key Congressional districts in core electoral states such as OH, PA and FL.
[/quote]

Well, the problem with using 2008 is that voter turnout for the 18-25 crowd was at historic highs due to the celebrity status Obama attained. 2012 saw a remarkable cooling off of that, but still elevated turnout from the past established trend.

I will grant you that the democrats have an EXCEPTIONAL ground game for the big elections, and that typically speaking more moderate and liberal voters take part in POTUS elections than mid-term and House elections. But I do not believe it would take “record low” turnout by the liberal social crowd to allow a GOP victory (notice I did not say “guarantee” a GOP victory).

However I do agree with your overall point concerning social stances and electability. The demographic crisis is already here, but it will get worse for the GOP as the future unfolds. And that means a politician has to be more moderate on social issues than they have been. Actually, I’d settle for not saying stupid shit like “legitimate rape”.

However here’s where I agree with SexMachine–the demographic crisis can only be averted by a cultural war to make conservative values “hip” again, for lack of any adequate verbiage that occurs to me at this point in time.

JR249 · December 18, 2014, 8:08pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However here’s where I agree with SexMachine–the demographic crisis can only be averted by a cultural war to make conservative values “hip” again, for lack of any adequate verbiage that occurs to me at this point in time.[/quote]

How does this play out? Rarely, if ever, do cultures regress where moral values are concerned. I just don’t see the upcoming generations as ever becoming more “conservative” on issues like gay marriage or gay rights, abortion, women’s rights, etc. I certainly could be wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it if it starts happening, but about the only issues on which I think younger generations may, in time, come to see value in conservative principles would be those of economic or political nature (e.g., taxation, social services, scope of government, individual liberty, negative vs positive liberties, and so forth).

Aragorn · December 18, 2014, 9:39pm

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However here’s where I agree with SexMachine–the demographic crisis can only be averted by a cultural war to make conservative values “hip” again, for lack of any adequate verbiage that occurs to me at this point in time.[/quote]

How does this play out? Rarely, if ever, do cultures regress where moral values are concerned. I just don’t see the upcoming generations as ever becoming more “conservative” on issues like gay marriage or gay rights, abortion, women’s rights, etc. I certainly could be wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it if it starts happening, but about the only issues on which I think younger generations may, in time, come to see value in conservative principles would be those of economic or political nature (e.g., taxation, social services, scope of government, individual liberty, negative vs positive liberties, and so forth).[/quote]

Well, a couple things first:

I didn’t say it was religious per se, which seems implied from your post even though you didn’t say it outright. Religion is the primary carrier for many of these conservative values but not the exclusive carrier. Or at least it WAS the primary carrier.

I didn’t say it WOULD “play out”. I said that any progress to be made would have to come from a cultural shift rather than an electoral shift—cultural/educational shifts drive electoral shifts, not the other way around, as the past 50 years has shown and as previous centuries should corroborate. This is different from saying that a cultural reversal or shift back will actually happen, which leads me to my next point below…

If you read Spengler, you’ll note how he observes cycles of civilizations and SexMachine–as a Spenglerian–will likely agree with his assessments at least in large part. I don’t want to speak for him as he is perfectly capable to clarify his views, just what I have observed of him. Spengler however saw the cycle as all but irreversible, which is to say that he would not see–and SM likely does not see either–a true reverse occurring from this cultural shift we have undergone. It is more or less inexorable, like entropy.

I’d also point out it would be difficult to attain conservative political values without SOME conservative social values. As before, culture drives politics not vice versa. I think it might be possible, but not overly likely. A culture that values “long term vision” and “very hard work” typically also values conservative political values. However the predominant culture we have is all about “me”: instant gratification, “getting mine”, and “making someone pay” over “dealing with tragedy and transcending it”. This is anathema to conservative political values, using your descriptors from above.

angry_chicken · December 19, 2014, 12:17pm

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However here’s where I agree with SexMachine–the demographic crisis can only be averted by a cultural war to make conservative values “hip” again, for lack of any adequate verbiage that occurs to me at this point in time.[/quote]

How does this play out? Rarely, if ever, do cultures regress where moral values are concerned. I just don’t see the upcoming generations as ever becoming more “conservative” on issues like gay marriage or gay rights, abortion, women’s rights, etc. I certainly could be wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it if it starts happening, but about the only issues on which I think younger generations may, in time, come to see value in conservative principles would be those of economic or political nature (e.g., taxation, social services, scope of government, individual liberty, negative vs positive liberties, and so forth).[/quote]

And in reality, these are the only things that matter. Who gives a flying fuck what two people do behind closed doors? The government doesn’t have to tell us how to find our happiness, it has to defend us from threats, keep our roads plowed, lower our taxes, etc… Give them their silly social issues - how does that even compare to the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt that we are in? Let all the fags marry each other! I won’t matter at all if our society collapses under the weight of all the paper money we are “printing” out of thin air!

Look at the global economic situation: Oil is down, the dollar is holding, the stock market had a RECORD high AGAIN on news that they are going to keep interest rates down (and talk about hitting 20K next year)… All while the rest of the world is in decline… Meanwhile our debt is being swept under the rug, nothing is being done to address our MASSIVE entitlement obligations, and they are pulling the checks and balances on the banks… If that’s not a bubble, I don’t know what is.

When that bubble pops, what two fags do with eachother or how many “social issues” are addressed won’t matter at all. We need to take control of our economy and enact some serious fiscal policy changes, starting with entitlements or we are ALL fucked.

When the dollar collapses and society begins to feed on itself, the feminists might be proved right: sex will be rape, because of the hoards of unchecked assholes riding around raping everyone or killing people over a can of dogfood.

We are worried about the wrong things right now and we are running out of time.

JR249 · December 19, 2014, 1:55pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you read Spengler, you’ll note how he observes cycles of civilizations and SexMachine–as a Spenglerian–will likely agree with his assessments at least in large part. I don’t want to speak for him as he is perfectly capable to clarify his views, just what I have observed of him. Spengler however saw the cycle as all but irreversible, which is to say that he would not see–and SM likely does not see either–a true reverse occurring from this cultural shift we have undergone. It is more or less inexorable, like entropy.

[/quote]

I know of Spengler, but I haven’t really read any of his published work. However, those observations seem sensible.

SexMachine · December 19, 2014, 5:28pm

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
If you read Spengler, you’ll note how he observes cycles of civilizations and SexMachine–as a Spenglerian–will likely agree with his assessments at least in large part. I don’t want to speak for him as he is perfectly capable to clarify his views, just what I have observed of him. Spengler however saw the cycle as all but irreversible, which is to say that he would not see–and SM likely does not see either–a true reverse occurring from this cultural shift we have undergone. It is more or less inexorable, like entropy.

[/quote]

Someone is talking about me…

Yes, I was very much influenced by Spengler’s civilisational cycle. I think it’s an important point because it relates to people’s fundamental beliefs even if they don’t realise it, they’re shaped by it. For example, I was talking to a poster in the gay marriage discussion a few days ago and when it came down to it this guy said his beliefs(pro-gay marriage) are founded upon an assumption that Western civilisation is in a forward progression and that the future will be better than the present as technology continues to advance and as society becomes increasingly “liberal” or “progressive” or “egalitarian” etc.

As someone who firmly believes we are in decline my politics are inevitably reactionary. As is my worldview which is “anti-modernist” and “traditionalist” - ie, I agree with many of the philosophers who opposed the French Revolution and more broadly the Enlightenment: Joseph de Maistre, Louis de Bonald, Juan Donoso Cortes and later traditionalists of the Third Republic and the revolutionary conservatives of the late 19th/early 20th century. I got my overview in political philosophy through Leo Strauss’s lectures and writings. Strauss was a revolutionary conservative but distanced himself from them after the mid-30’s. I was also influenced by a lot of writers from the Middle Ages and antiquity like Machiavelli, Boethius, Xenophon etc.

on_edge · February 21, 2015, 5:34pm

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
However here’s where I agree with SexMachine–the demographic crisis can only be averted by a cultural war to make conservative values “hip” again, for lack of any adequate verbiage that occurs to me at this point in time.[/quote]

How does this play out? Rarely, if ever, do cultures regress where moral values are concerned. I just don’t see the upcoming generations as ever becoming more “conservative” on issues like gay marriage or gay rights, abortion, women’s rights, etc. I certainly could be wrong, and I’ll gladly admit it if it starts happening, but about the only issues on which I think younger generations may, in time, come to see value in conservative principles would be those of economic or political nature (e.g., taxation, social services, scope of government, individual liberty, negative vs positive liberties, and so forth).[/quote]

And in reality, these are the only things that matter. Who gives a flying fuck what two people do behind closed doors? The government doesn’t have to tell us how to find our happiness, it has to defend us from threats, keep our roads plowed, lower our taxes, etc… Give them their silly social issues - how does that even compare to the TRILLIONS of dollars of debt that we are in? Let all the fags marry each other! I won’t matter at all if our society collapses under the weight of all the paper money we are “printing” out of thin air!

Look at the global economic situation: Oil is down, the dollar is holding, the stock market had a RECORD high AGAIN on news that they are going to keep interest rates down (and talk about hitting 20K next year)… All while the rest of the world is in decline… Meanwhile our debt is being swept under the rug, nothing is being done to address our MASSIVE entitlement obligations, and they are pulling the checks and balances on the banks… If that’s not a bubble, I don’t know what is.

When that bubble pops, what two fags do with eachother or how many “social issues” are addressed won’t matter at all. We need to take control of our economy and enact some serious fiscal policy changes, starting with entitlements or we are ALL fucked.

When the dollar collapses and society begins to feed on itself, the feminists might be proved right: sex will be rape, because of the hoards of unchecked assholes riding around raping everyone or killing people over a can of dogfood.

We are worried about the wrong things right now and we are running out of time.[/quote]

This is exactly my opinion (except I’m too classy to call gay people fags). My social beliefs tend to be liberal but I vote conservative because our country needs a strong economy and to be a force no body will fuck with.

I disagree with JR about moral values progressing to a more enlightened nature. When radical Islam’s succeed in getting The Bomb and are able to sneak devices into every major US city and detonate them all at once, our enlightened western culture will be gone. Europe will fall like a house of cards when that happens. Then it will be down to the Chinese and the Muslims. Not much progression there.

on_edge · February 21, 2015, 5:38pm

Anywho, The reason I bumped this thread, rather than hijack the Ted Cruz thread, is to ask you guys if Jeb Bush could carry Florida. I ask that because due to the demographics I don’t believe the republicans can win a presidential election. But, if Jeb Bush could take Florida could there be a chance?

MattyG35 · February 21, 2015, 7:28pm

[quote]on edge wrote:
This is exactly my opinion (except I’m too classy to call gay people fags). My social beliefs tend to be liberal but I vote conservative because our country needs a strong economy and to be a force no body will fuck with.

I disagree with JR about moral values progressing to a more enlightened nature. When radical Islam’s succeed in getting The Bomb and are able to sneak devices into every major US city and detonate them all at once, our enlightened western culture will be gone. Europe will fall like a house of cards when that happens. Then it will be down to the Chinese and the Muslims. Not much progression there.[/quote]

Hey onedge, you ever see this video,

While I’m not buying everything he says about China’s political system, i do think he brings to light some interesting points with respect to meritocracy and the political system.
Definitely worth checking out IMO

Mufasa · February 21, 2015, 7:39pm

[quote]on edge wrote:
Anywho, The reason I bumped this thread, rather than hijack the Ted Cruz thread, is to ask you guys if Jeb Bush could carry Florida. I ask that because due to the demographics I don’t believe the republicans can win a presidential election. But, if Jeb Bush could take Florida could there be a chance?[/quote]

edge:

As we sit here in February of 2015, almost 2 years before the election (an “eternity” in Politics); these are my feelings:

The 2016 Presidential Election is Hillary’s to lose.
If anybody could “knock her off her game”, it would be Jeb.

Hillary has two things going for her (whether one chooses to accept it or not):

a) she has perhaps the greatest POLITICAL mind of a generation as her closest advisor (whom not only is a former President, but has been through many tough campaigns and situations that would have destroyed the political careers of anyone else).

b) “Destiny”…as the first Woman President of the United States. “Destiny” is a VERY powerful force that will garner her millions of votes.

With this being said, Hillary is NOT Bill Clinton. And she has shown a propensity to really get knocked off her game by things that would be child’s play for Bill. She is easily angered. And she is not nearly as cautions and careful with her words as Bill was.

Jeb Bush seems to be a much “cooler” head. I really don’t think that he will have much problem “distancing” himself from his Brother (he did a damn good job of stating his own positions this week, even saying where he disagreed with his Brother).

Jeb also has the potential to garner a larger percentage of the minority Vote that anyone else in the current GOP field.

The point is that TO ME…Jeb has the greatest chance against Hillary, should it come down to the two.

Mufasa

UtahLama · February 21, 2015, 7:57pm

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Anywho, The reason I bumped this thread, rather than hijack the Ted Cruz thread, is to ask you guys if Jeb Bush could carry Florida. I ask that because due to the demographics I don’t believe the republicans can win a presidential election. But, if Jeb Bush could take Florida could there be a chance?[/quote]

edge:

As we sit here in February of 2015, almost 2 years before the election (an “eternity” in Politics); these are my feelings:

The 2016 Presidential Election is Hillary’s to lose.
If anybody could “knock her off her game”, it would be Jeb.

Hillary has two things going for her (whether one chooses to accept it or not):

a) she has perhaps the greatest POLITICAL mind of a generation as her closest advisor (whom not only is a former President, but has been through many tough campaigns and situations that would have destroyed the political careers of anyone else).

b) “Destiny”…as the first Woman President of the United States. “Destiny” is a VERY powerful force that will garner her millions of votes.

With this being said, Hillary is NOT Bill Clinton. And she has shown a propensity to really get knocked off her game by things that would be child’s play for Bill. She is easily angered. And she is not nearly as cautions and careful with her words as Bill was.

Jeb Bush seems to be a much “cooler” head. I really don’t think that he will have much problem “distancing” himself from his Brother (he did a damn good job of stating his own positions this week, even saying where he disagreed with his Brother).

Jeb also has the potential to garner a larger percentage of the minority Vote that anyone else in the current GOP field.

The point is that TO ME…Jeb has the greatest chance against Hillary, should it come down to the two.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Good post Muf

MattyG35 · February 21, 2015, 8:21pm

Points against Hillary:

She’s going to be too old to win.
List of presidents of the United States by age - Wikipedia
The politically astute know she has no relevant accomplishments.
Young people will think she’s an old crank.
African-Americans won’t be interested in an old white lady either.
Anyone that’s served in the military and has at least two rocks in there head won’t respect her over Benghazi, which will be emphasized.
She’ll be in trouble with female voters when people push the angle that she doesn’t actually fight for women’s right, despite her trying her best to make it seem that way.
Lower income people definitely won’t relate to her as she tries to bullshit about being in the poor house.

Anyone care to add 7 and beyond?

The only reason she’s being touted as the nominee for her party is because there is NO. ONE. ELSE.

MattyG35 · February 21, 2015, 8:33pm

Here’s number 7 and 8.
7. With her stroke (or whatever the hell it was) and age, she won’t be able to keep up in any debates, she’s going to keep using empty emotive language that will get old and she’ll have to dance around the questions, just like her and her supporters here

Here she lists nothing but bullshit

Young dummies can’t name shit

Psaki, in charge of WH pres can’t name any accomplishments

MSM can’t name her accomplishments, this will get played lots when the time comes, and people will laugh. No one wants to vote for a dud.

Smart power, hahaha, considering her time as SoS was a complete failure, this will become a meme of being stupid.

Mufasa · February 21, 2015, 11:27pm

The GOP HAS to articulate their vision of America clearly to the American people. (A view expressed many times by prominent Republicans).

While attacking the Democratic nominee may gain some “Fuck YEAH!” votes; it won’t be enough to win the Presidency.

Hillary’s age and health is a legitimate concern.

Mufasa

orion · February 21, 2015, 11:55pm

[quote]on edge wrote: