• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would a Republican be allowed to hold the office again?

TheRepublican

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2017
Messages
1,614
Reaction score
177
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
After 2016, people have some mix reviews about the president. Is this country becoming more like a one political party or a must have to be a democrat leader? If so then the democrats have to change their views on stuff
 
No chance.

The GOP have proved themselves to be total eunuchs.
 
No chance.

The GOP have proved themselves to be total eunuchs.

In my view, the democrats can govern, but have trouble winning elections. Republicans can win elections, but have trouble governing. Their agenda is generally not supported by most people, who, for example, might want the environment protected or the minimum wage increased. Republicans make ideology-driven noises about Social Security,Medicare, and Obamacare, but in power their fantasies become non-starters in the real world of politics.
 
Would a Republican be allowed to hold the office again?

With any luck, no, or at least, no time soon.
 
Is this country becoming more like a one political party or a must have to be a democrat leader?

YES.


As you know, the population profile of the United States of America is dramatically changing at lightning speed.

The Democratic Party says and does things that more and more legal and illegal residents want and demand.

Here in California, the Republican Party is now dead.

Florida's recent close elections show that even the red South is fast a-changing.

By 2100, the United States of America (if it still exists in its present form) will be a totally different country.
 
In my view, the democrats can govern, but have trouble winning elections. Republicans can win elections, but have trouble governing. Their agenda is generally not supported by most people, who, for example, might want the environment protected or the minimum wage increased. Republicans make ideology-driven noises about Social Security,Medicare, and Obamacare, but in power their fantasies become non-starters in the real world of politics.
Talk about fantasies, Democrats can govern... you kidding me? :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

What did they do about the massive illegal immigration crisis when they had all three branches of the government? Nothing. About North Korea? Reviving a declining economy? Nothing and nothing. Resolving racial divisions, only creating a wider divide. Increasing the minimum wage is a band-aide feel-good fix that only exacerbates problems...

Our side believes very much in conserving nature, not the highly politicized and partisan left-wing power grab called Eco-environmentalism.
 
After 2016, people have some mix reviews about the president. Is this country becoming more like a one political party or a must have to be a democrat leader? If so then the democrats have to change their views on stuff

I think from FDR until Reagan this country for the most part was a one party country. Democrats averaged 45% of the electorate to 28% for the Republicans. From 1933-1994 the Democrats controlled the House for 58 out of 62 years which included 40 straight years. They controlled the senate for 52 out of those 62 years, if not for Reagan 1981-1986 when the GOP controlled the senate, it would have been, like the house 58 of 62.

The Republicans were able to elect two presidents from 1933-1980, Eisenhower, everyone liked IKE to include Democrats. Nixon won in 1968 and Ford finished up his second term. Three presidents, but only two elected. During Reagan the Democratic Party share of the electorate dropped from an average of 45% down to 35% and pretty much remained there until Obama in which their percentage dropped down to 30%. The republicans rose to 32% during Reagan, then dropped down to 30% until Obama and has decreased to 26% today. Independents have climbed from 15% under FDR to 30% under Reagan until G.W. Bush then began to rise again in 2006 up to 43% today.

Those are the numbers. I think as the two parties, one drifting further and further right, the other further left especially since 2006 this has caused the rise in independents as they deserted their former parties. One or the other party can, has the opportunity to dominate in politics over the next 20-30 years if one or the other would move back to the center picking up those independents they have lost. To take charge of the country like the democrats did in the pre-Reagan era. I doubt that will happen though.

Independents now seem to vote against the party they are most angry with. The Republicans in 2018, the Democrats in 2010, The Republicans in 2006 and the democrats in 1994.
 
after the Trump debacle, i don't plan to vote Republican again. i think that it sucks that i only have one other viable choice, however. i don't see how an artificially limited duopoly can work long term. we're too tribal to survive a system like that.
 
I think from FDR until Reagan this country for the most part was a one party country. Democrats averaged 45% of the electorate to 28% for the Republicans. From 1933-1994 the Democrats controlled the House for 58 out of 62 years which included 40 straight years. They controlled the senate for 52 out of those 62 years, if not for Reagan 1981-1986 when the GOP controlled the senate, it would have been, like the house 58 of 62.

The Republicans were able to elect two presidents from 1933-1980, Eisenhower, everyone liked IKE to include Democrats. Nixon won in 1968 and Ford finished up his second term. Three presidents, but only two elected. During Reagan the Democratic Party share of the electorate dropped from an average of 45% down to 35% and pretty much remained there until Obama in which their percentage dropped down to 30%. The republicans rose to 32% during Reagan, then dropped down to 30% until Obama and has decreased to 26% today. Independents have climbed from 15% under FDR to 30% under Reagan until G.W. Bush then began to rise again in 2006 up to 43% today.

Those are the numbers. I think as the two parties, one drifting further and further right, the other further left especially since 2006 this has caused the rise in independents as they deserted their former parties. One or the other party can, has the opportunity to dominate in politics over the next 20-30 years if one or the other would move back to the center picking up those independents they have lost. To take charge of the country like the democrats did in the pre-Reagan era. I doubt that will happen though.

Independents now seem to vote against the party they are most angry with. The Republicans in 2018, the Democrats in 2010, The Republicans in 2006 and the democrats in 1994.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I really enjoy reading your posts because of all the time you spend doing the research to make your posts interesting! This one was no different, so all I can say is Thank You for the time you take to keep us informed, especially concerning the independents and what seems to motivate their voting choices! :kissy: Is that why Trump won when few expected it, since Hillary was expected to be the "shoo-in" winner?
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

I really enjoy reading your posts because of all the time you spend doing the research to make your posts interesting! This one was no different, so all I can say is Thank You for the time you take to keep us informed, especially concerning the independents and what seems to motivate their voting choices! :kissy: Is that why Trump won when few expected it, since Hillary was expected to be the "shoo-in" winner?

Yes. Independents didn't like either major party candidate. But disliked Hillary Clinton, 70% dislike or unfavorable to trump's 57% dislike or unfavorable. Questions 10 & 11.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

This led to many independents holding their nose and voting for the major party candidate they least wanted to lose. That turned out to be Trump. If just Republicans and Democrats had voted, Hillary would have won the popular vote by 5 million votes. But Trump won independents by 2 million which shrunk that lead of 5 million down to 3 million. Just enough for Trump to eek out wins in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, giving him the White House.

Now keep in mind where independents voted for Trump over Clinton, they still disliked Trump. 2018, no Hillary on the ballot for those independents who disliked Trump, but voted for him over Hillary, now cast their ballots for the Democratic congressional candidates. Giving the Democrats control of the House.
 
That’s not what my country I’m not sorry but, you are basically saying you better vote for Democrats or else! The democrats shouldn’t be the alternative solution for the country! You know it’s pretty scary how republicans are losing their common sense. Look at what’s going on with everything from the democrats investigation every day of excuse to impeach the president! Because your president didn’t win! Give me a break
 
after the Trump debacle, i don't plan to vote Republican again. i think that it sucks that i only have one other viable choice, however. i don't see how an artificially limited duopoly can work long term. we're too tribal to survive a system like that.

If I was you I’d throw my vote for Jill stain or whatever because the democrats definitely has a identity crisis and, it’s pretty interesting and they are masking their own history.
 
If I was you I’d throw my vote for Jill stain or whatever because the democrats definitely has a identity crisis and, it’s pretty interesting and they are masking their own history.

she has no chance of winning, and i will only have one viable way to vote against Trump. i hope that the Democrats don't choose the wrong candidate next time.
 
she has no chance of winning, and i will only have one viable way to vote against Trump. i hope that the Democrats don't choose the wrong candidate next time.

They are already trying to change the age requirement for the president ! Because they found their socialist candidate!
 
I heard a commentator way back in the mid 2000s say "GW has irreparably harmed the republican party and its likely we wont see a GOP president for 30 years." Well here we are. I think as more partisans drift to the further edge of their party they are ignoring the majority which is in the middle. So they are angry and will vote all over the place. They may like democrats today and republicans tomorrow. Both sides seem to think, "we won they love us we have a mandate." Not realizing that the major component of the 2018 midterms was that many centrists voted against Trump and not necessarily FOR them. They just as easily could go back to voting republican if the right candidates emerge. Both sides take for granted how fluid the middle is.
 
People should look at how trump did during the campaign during for the presidency! I honestly thought that they were going to pick Jeb because they love the last name! If you want to really want to know how the don won. It wasn’t by compassion Jeb. People saw something that Trump offer then the other candidates. It’s funny how the republicans were for Ted Cruz but, they ripped president Obama about not being born in the United States!
 
They are already trying to change the age requirement for the president ! Because they found their socialist candidate!

this is looking more and more useless.
 
Talk about fantasies, Democrats can govern... you kidding me? :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

What did they do about the massive illegal immigration crisis when they had all three branches of the government? Nothing. About North Korea? Reviving a declining economy? Nothing and nothing. Resolving racial divisions, only creating a wider divide. Increasing the minimum wage is a band-aide feel-good fix that only exacerbates problems...

Our side believes very much in conserving nature, not the highly politicized and partisan left-wing power grab called Eco-environmentalism.

Old stuff: SS, Medicare, workers comp, unemployment insurance, the right to organize
New stuff: Civil Rights laws, equal pay laws, Lowering deficits under Clinton and Obama, the ACA, Paris Accord, Iran agreement with our allies

You may not like what they acomplished, but it was governing.
 
Old stuff: SS, Medicare, workers comp, unemployment insurance, the right to organize
New stuff: Civil Rights laws, equal pay laws, Lowering deficits under Clinton and Obama, the ACA, Paris Accord, Iran agreement with our allies

You may not like what they acomplished, but it was governing.

That's nothing compared to our old stuff, ending slavery, giving the right to vote to our black brothers, the Original Civil Rights laws and far more % participation in the passage of the more current, Brown v Board, taking the Dems head-on in their public school discrimination, ending the Vietnam War that the Dems got us into and escalated with lies...just a partial list yano.

Current, tax reform and cuts, decimating ISIS, getting rid of overburdensome regulations, growing economy and GDP, reinvigorating a hollowed out military by your side's incompetence or plan, bringing back American industry and spirit, doing away with Obamadontcare, especially the individual mandate, thank you Don, getting us out of that piece of **** Paris Accord and the even worse Iran debacle deal...
 
Back
Top Bottom