The Next President of the United States?
- Thread starter Jagger69
- Start date
PirateKing
█▀█▀█ █ █
Saying that he's the most appealing of all the current contenders still isn't saying much.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Isn't he the one that was calling for Texas' succession from the union?
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I don't know... I think Perry could easily win the GOP nomination simply because he appeals to "the base" so well. But his problem in the general election (IMO) will be the fact that the U.S. is a center-right country, not a far right country. And Perry is pretty far to the right, especially on social issues. His suggestion that Texas could/should secede from the Union completely eliminates ANY chance that I would ever vote for him. More likely that I would supply the rope used to hang him... as I would do with anyone who would threaten the Republic.
As far as Rick Perry's "secession talk"...that was little more than pandering to the lunatic fringe in Texas and beyond. He wasn't serious. So, if you like I guy who will do or say anything to pander to the fringe...then Rick is your man.
As far as 3rd party candidates go...they have the deck stacked against them because the Republicans and Democrats both need each other and have a vested interest in maintaining the 2 party system. Better the devil you know is how they look at it. If by some fluke (and it would have to be a fluke), a 3rd party candidate would win the White House...he would have absolutely no support in Congress to get anything done. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to see that nothing on his agenda would get passed and nothing would get done so that he is a one-term President and either the Republicans or Democrats would take it back for the 2-party system in the next election. It's a sad but true fact. A 3rd party candidate for president, in the end, is a losing proposition...the game is simply rigged in the 2-party system's favor!
As far as 3rd party candidates go...they have the deck stacked against them because the Republicans and Democrats both need each other and have a vested interest in maintaining the 2 party system. Better the devil you know is how they look at it. If by some fluke (and it would have to be a fluke), a 3rd party candidate would win the White House...he would have absolutely no support in Congress to get anything done. The Republicans and Democrats would team up to see that nothing on his agenda would get passed and nothing would get done so that he is a one-term President and either the Republicans or Democrats would take it back for the 2-party system in the next election. It's a sad but true fact. A 3rd party candidate for president, in the end, is a losing proposition...the game is simply rigged in the 2-party system's favor!
Yeop that same media. Obama would've won had he run in '04. The media will not pull the rug out from under the first black president. It will not happen.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I love it when people make comments without bothering to read the original post. 
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Oh....OK. :tinhat: Tell me how that works, Trident. Do I just wait for Brian Williams to send me some subliminal message that tells me how to vote?
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
tl;dr
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Based on your question, I pretty much figured that out on my own.
I tried reading it, but then I got to the point where you say Bush was allegedly voted Governor of Texas, loled, and then went and had a cookie.
When Dubya got elected the first time, he pretty much ran as a moderate. Common wisdom is you need to appeal to the base to get the nom, tack to the middle during the campaign, then do whatever the fuck you want once you get in.
Personally, I think Texas succession would make a lot of sense. People in Texas have a right to live the way they want to live without people from Massachusetts telling them what they can and can't do, and the same goes for the people of Massachusetts. Texas has a great GDP— they don't need the rest of the country. They could siphon off other like-minded red states and build a Libertarian paradise, while the Northeastern/California bloc could get on with putting together a European style social state. Win-win in my book.
You actually acknowledged him in a non-derogatory way— you're going soft!
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
OK....except I never said that Bush was allegedly voted Governor of Texas so.... :dunno:
Anyway....back to the topic.
The first time RP stands up in front of people other than those already in his 'congregation' and they here that all too familiar twang...it's over.
Not sure Americans are ready to throw lot behind another 'aw shucks' type Texas Gov.
We haven't yet gotten the thorns out of our collective asses from the last one.
Not sure Americans are ready to throw lot behind another 'aw shucks' type Texas Gov.
We haven't yet gotten the thorns out of our collective asses from the last one.
Don't underestimate your boys at Fox. They're by far the savviest people in media right now, and I think there's a strong case to be made that they've usurped the New York Times position as the "agenda setter" in news.
It's like Jon Stuart said in that Chris Wallace interview. The "liberal" media is tacking toward laziness and the sensational—this phenomenon at the NY Times is a big part of what allowed the Iraq invasion to happen. On the other side of things, Fox is focused. They have a mission and they've been extremely effective. Murdoch, for instance, was pushing hard for the Iraq invasion and he got his way.
Obama is in office for 1 reason: The economy collapsed in 2008.
PlasmaTwa2
The Second-Hottest Man in my Mother's Basement
Similar threads
