The Future of the Republican Party

[implodinggoat]

This post is to discuss the future of the Republican party. In particular what approach should they take in the 2004 election.

Note this post is not for you liberal types to say things like "Bush suxorz my coxorz Democratz Rulz!"

[implodinggoat]

My vision at this point, is that Cheney steps down due to health concerns and the Republicans should then have Colin Powell become Vice President.

Powell is so liked that with him as vice president the Democrats would have one hell of a time getting more than ten electoral votes.

Then Powell would be set to become president in 2008.

The only obstacle is convincing his wife to let him run. She is concerned that some KKK son of a bitch would assasinate him if he was president which I must admit is a possibility.

[karasz]

Ride the Bush wave...

also, have some kids beat up a homeless guy before Maj. Leader Bill Frist, who happens to be walking down the street, saves his life... im not saying that will happen or anything im jsut saying it would be nice to have a guy save someone's life...

and ride the military winning the war... and having a not horrible economy...

then bingo bango, the game is over

[karasz]

At 4/13/03 02:02 AM, implodinggoat wrote: My vision at this point, is that Cheney steps down due to health concerns and the Republicans should then have Colin Powell become Vice President.

wont happen... KKK would take him out like it was there job... which is funny cuz he was in the military and the KKK is quite supportive of the military... just another irony in the world...

Powell is so liked that with him as vice president the Democrats would have one hell of a time getting more than ten electoral votes.

well the dems would be done... a BLACK guy running with the reps... would either cause their heads to explode or end the existence of the democratic party...

Then Powell would be set to become president in 2008.

wrong... KKK would have sadly succeeded by now...

The only obstacle is convincing his wife to let him run. She is concerned that some KKK son of a bitch would assasinate him if he was president which I must admit is a possibility.

his wife isnt stupid... and it would happen sadly...

although i must admit he's been getting on my nerves recently, with his switch on the iraq issue... oh well

[implodinggoat]

He would definately be at more risk for assasination than any other president, but some one has to be the first and I would like to see it be Powell.

[karasz]

also powell is pro-choice... and a pro-choice person will not be nominated for the REP party until the religious right gets much weaker... and thats not going to happen anytime soon...

[bumcheekcity]

i dont reckon this will happen, powell isnt going to go changing parties, but it is a good idea, id vote for him. (aside for the minor factors that i am 13 and a citizen of the UK) i think the democrats will win. i really hope they have someone who will help the US's relations with other countries now. someone like Clinton, who went in with a smile and whatever he did, everyone seemed to think he was right. now that was a good president.

summarising, i dont think there is much of a future for the republicans in 2004. and if they do get in, then realations with lots of countries will slowly and surely crumble.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 4/13/03 01:57 AM, implodinggoat wrote: This post is to discuss the future of the Republican party.

Something like this:

[Nightshadeplus]

Now that was tasteless, MC, and you know it. I doubt Powell will run for office. I believe he'll always remain in an advisory role to leadership. John McCain might try his luck again in the presidential run but I seriously doubt he'll ever win the presidency. In my home state, Georgia, whether the new governor, Sonny Perdue, does a good job as Georgia's first Rep. gov. in over 150 years will determine the fate of the party in my state.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/13/03 07:20 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 4/13/03 01:57 AM, implodinggoat wrote: This post is to discuss the future of the Republican party.

Something like this:

Lets see and your a communist right? Yes, your political party has a great history....I mean they have always had such great respect for the individuals who are forced to follow them....Stalin was truly a great example that all politicians should spire to.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/13/03 03:20 AM, karasz wrote: also powell is pro-choice... and a pro-choice person will not be nominated for the REP party until the religious right gets much weaker... and thats not going to happen anytime soon...

This is a valid point and why Powell would never get past the Republican Primary at present even if Bush decided not to run again for no apparent reason.

I personally like Powell's views but they do clash with the religous types in the party. The only way for him to ever become President is he was already VP then it would be expected that he would be the parties next nomination for President and the Religous right would be forced to accept him or else the party would be viewed as flaming rascists and they couldn't possibly win the presidency with anyone else.

If Bush took some initiative and knocked him up to VP then he would be as good as assuring himself a second term, because Powell would have a huge draw with minority voters and moderates.

From a political standpoint it is a very smooth move.

[Slizor]

Lets see and your a communist right? Yes, your political party has a great history....I mean they have always had such great respect for the individuals who are forced to follow them....Stalin was truly a great example that all politicians should spire to.

You're a Capitalist, right? You know, that system which kills thousands of people every single day.

[NEMESiSZ]

Personally, I'd like to see a different GOP candidate than Bush, like McCain, but that would never happen.

Right now the republicans have a lot of issues, as opposed to the democrats, who are basically running as the abortion party, since they can't run as the anti-war party anymore.

It should be an easy victory in 2004 for the republicans, assuming a non b-team democrat doesn't throw himself into the mix, like Al Gore.

The New York thing isn't going to go well, as much as I'd like to see the GOP carry NY, it just isn't going to happen with Bush or any other big name GOP these days.

[TheEvilOne]

If the election were today, Bush would win pretty easily.

Whether or not he wins in 2004 is still up in the air. A lot can happen between now and then.

Personally, I think the economy will make a post-war turnaround, thus helping Bush to victory in 2004. Also, I wouldn't mind seeing Cheney step aside and let Powell be Bush's running mate, but I'm not sure it will happen.

If he's willing to run, then Powell is the logical choice for 2008. To placate the Religious Right, you could have some ultra-conservative as his running mate. But let's be honest--even if the Religious Right doesn't like Powell, it's not like they're going to flock en masse to vote for the Democrat. And I don't think that there is a third party viable enough for them to throw their support to. Get a good running mate for Powell, and you'll probably keep their support.

[NEMESiSZ]

Powell would win if he ran, no questions asked.

He's said he doesn't want to run though, and personally, he makes a much better Secy of State than he would President of VP.

[Commander-K25]

At 4/13/03 05:03 PM, Slizor wrote: You're a Capitalist, right? You know, that system which kills thousands of people every single day.

That's a completely unfounded and baseless assertion.

[implodinggoat]

At 4/13/03 05:03 PM, Slizor wrote: You're a Capitalist, right? You know, that system which kills thousands of people every single day.

Your a communist right? You know, that system that kills thousands of supposed dissidents every single day and oppreses well over a billion.

[MarijuanaClock]

At 4/13/03 06:47 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 4/13/03 05:03 PM, Slizor wrote: You're a Capitalist, right? You know, that system which kills thousands of people every single day.

That's a completely unfounded and baseless assertion.

Capitalism has created economic conditions in which over 6000 people die from starvation, poverty, and disease daily.

It is not unfounded or baseless. You're just ignorant of the world around you, but thats ok, we understand. You're just being a good little conservative.

[Jimsween]

At 4/14/03 12:01 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

Capitalism has created economic conditions in which over 6000 people die from starvation, poverty, and disease daily.

Under no Economy (I say economy because capitalism isnt a form of government it is a form of economy) could any of those things you said be avoided so capitalism isnt to blame for them.

It is not unfounded or baseless. You're just ignorant of the world around you, but thats ok, we understand. You're just being a good little conservative.

He's not ignorant to the world around him he's just ignorant to the pretend world you live in where there are talking beasts, wizards, and dwarfs and the whole world is communist.

[NJDeadzone]

At 4/13/03 02:14 AM, implodinggoat wrote: He would definately be at more risk for assasination than any other president, but some one has to be the first and I would like to see it be Powell.

lol funny you mix assassination with Bush and Powell

Chris Rock said something very funny, he explained why there wouldn't ever be a black vice-president. The reason is that as soon as the white president would be sworn in again, someone would assassinate him and create the first African-American one. "I wouldn't mind goin to jail or be executed if i was in the history book forever as the person that put the black man in the oval office!"

[AbstractVagabond]

Future of the repub party. Hmmmmmmm. Bush has the cards looking favorable for him to be re-elected. Won't be by me, though. Outside of 9-11, he's handled everything horribly. He does have 18 months to make some considerable improvements for me to consider, but I'm think he'll just dig himself further into the ground. Sadly, the democratic party isn't offering anyone worthy for me to vote for. I'd vote for Kerry because he showed me he had balls to call for a "regime change" here (which I agree with currently), however "balls" isn't exactly in the political vocabulary. I have a feeling the Democrats will back Lieberman (who I dislike as much as Bush, if not more). If they do that, I'll do my vote like I did in 2000. Voting for a 3rd party candidate.

[Anarchy-Balsac]

the future of polotics is as unpredictable as a dice roll. my best geuss though is that bush will win re-election and the house and senate will be toss-ups

[Taxman2A]

At 4/13/03 02:02 AM, implodinggoat wrote: My vision at this point, is that Cheney steps down due to health concerns and the Republicans should then have Colin Powell become Vice President.

Powell is so liked that with him as vice president the Democrats would have one hell of a time getting more than ten electoral votes.

Then Powell would be set to become president in 2008.

The only obstacle is convincing his wife to let him run. She is concerned that some KKK son of a bitch would assasinate him if he was president which I must admit is a possibility.

Many republicans asked Powell to run for president back in 2000... I think we all know he would have mopped the floor with Gore (as he would have with Bush if he chose to run against him in a primary). Powell repeatedly declined, citing a desire to keep his family safe, and not wanting to have his privacy violated. Powell doesn't seem to desire to be the President, which is a shame, he has what it takes to be the first Black leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

[Taxman2A]

At 4/14/03 03:19 AM, Ovalshine wrote: Future of the repub party. Hmmmmmmm. Bush has the cards looking favorable for him to be re-elected. Won't be by me, though. Outside of 9-11, he's handled everything horribly. He does have 18 months to make some considerable improvements for me to consider, but I'm think he'll just dig himself further into the ground. Sadly, the democratic party isn't offering anyone worthy for me to vote for. I'd vote for Kerry because he showed me he had balls to call for a "regime change" here (which I agree with currently), however "balls" isn't exactly in the political vocabulary. I have a feeling the Democrats will back Lieberman (who I dislike as much as Bush, if not more). If they do that, I'll do my vote like I did in 2000. Voting for a 3rd party candidate.

To be honest, Kerry seems like a good candidate, whom I believe has the definite ability to beat Bush in 2004. I agree with you though that the Dem's may back Lieberman, in which case, I think Bush would win again. I'm not sure of Kerry's official stance on Military spending (I would guess it would be similar to most democrats), however, he will do better with the Military crowd, given his quite impressive combat record. Many conservatives believe in voting for a man who has served his country in the past. Kerry's record, to say the least, beats Bush's by far on this account.

[Xellos-the-Mazoku]

At 4/14/03 12:01 AM, MarijuanaClock wrote:

At 4/13/03 06:47 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 4/13/03 05:03 PM, Slizor wrote:

Capitalism has created economic conditions in which over 6000 people die from starvation, poverty, and disease daily.

Really? Prove it.

[Xellos-the-Mazoku]

It seems to me that more people died of poverty, starvation, and disease under communism than under capitalism.

[bumcheekcity]

At 4/14/03 06:25 PM, Xellos_the_Mazoku wrote: It seems to me that more people died of poverty, starvation, and disease under communism than under capitalism.

not quite. more people die when capitalism puts sanctions on them and theyre usually communist countries.

[Taxman2A]

:At 4/14/03 07:34 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

not quite. more people die when capitalism puts sanctions on them and theyre usually communist countries.

Capitalism is the opposite of sanctions. The essence of capitalistic spirit is the "Laissez-faire" attitude-"let it be". Capitalism emphasises fewer governmental rules and sanctions under the general belief that governmental sanctions result in an economically weaker and unfair society.

This post of yours is just another function of your uneducated mindless hatred for America. This time you thought it would be fun to simply replace the word "America" with what you believed to be it's synonym- "capitalism". It doesn't apply in this case.

[karasz]

At 4/14/03 10:36 PM, Taxman2A wrote: Capitalism is the opposite of sanctions. The essence of capitalistic spirit is the "Laissez-faire" attitude-"let it be". Capitalism emphasises fewer governmental rules and sanctions under the general belief that governmental sanctions result in an economically weaker and unfair society.

yeah just like in the 1900's when businesses treated their workers worse than the slaves were treated...

[Commander-K25]

At 4/15/03 12:11 AM, karasz wrote: yeah just like in the 1900's when businesses treated their workers worse than the slaves were treated...

That was a century ago. Laws to protect workers rights have been implemented since then.