Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Republicans will win 2004 elections

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Republicans will win 2004 elections

    [edited copy-paste from original reply to the post "Who will you vote for?" by Julie]


    Bush will win.
    There is even possibility that he will win "landslide" victory.
    Mind to know why?

    1. Networks project "very close race".

    2. Republican base: UNITED, Active, Intelligent, educated, organized, self-conscious ( Blue collared supporters may not be particularly too Educated, but at least they are actively supportive and UNITED with the rest).

    3. Democratic base: DIVIDED, Apathetic, not PRACTICALLY Intelligent (ideals not in accord with reality and "tides of times"), disorganized, confused.
    _____________________________

    Bottom line: More Republicans will vote this year in anticipation of "close race".
    Less Democrats will show-up at the polls (their chronic apathy leading them to beleive that "it doesn't matter anyway").

    Republican party will win decisive victory in 2004.

    However, next four years will be a "trial by power".

    If Republicans do not meet their own standards, if they fail on promises and generally do not improve Security and Economy as pledged during elections, they may very well face beginning of new, RFK style "Radical-Liberal" era in history of American Politics.

    On the other hand, if they stay UNITED and ORGANIZED as they are today, accomplish their declared goals and in the meantime do not alienate too strongly marginalized segments of society, it is then possible for them to retain White House for another four to eight years after George W. Bushs' term ends*.


    _______________________________


    *My projection is that Congress will soon pass new Law (Amendment to the Constitution) allowing foreign born USC to be elected as Presidents and Arnold Schwartznegger may then be on his way to hold highest office in US, and first foreign born man to do so.
    Whether he will be on ballots in 2008 or 2012 or anytime later is another question.


    _______________________________

  • #2
    [edited copy-paste from original reply to the post "Who will you vote for?" by Julie]


    Bush will win.
    There is even possibility that he will win "landslide" victory.
    Mind to know why?

    1. Networks project "very close race".

    2. Republican base: UNITED, Active, Intelligent, educated, organized, self-conscious ( Blue collared supporters may not be particularly too Educated, but at least they are actively supportive and UNITED with the rest).

    3. Democratic base: DIVIDED, Apathetic, not PRACTICALLY Intelligent (ideals not in accord with reality and "tides of times"), disorganized, confused.
    _____________________________

    Bottom line: More Republicans will vote this year in anticipation of "close race".
    Less Democrats will show-up at the polls (their chronic apathy leading them to beleive that "it doesn't matter anyway").

    Republican party will win decisive victory in 2004.

    However, next four years will be a "trial by power".

    If Republicans do not meet their own standards, if they fail on promises and generally do not improve Security and Economy as pledged during elections, they may very well face beginning of new, RFK style "Radical-Liberal" era in history of American Politics.

    On the other hand, if they stay UNITED and ORGANIZED as they are today, accomplish their declared goals and in the meantime do not alienate too strongly marginalized segments of society, it is then possible for them to retain White House for another four to eight years after George W. Bushs' term ends*.


    _______________________________


    *My projection is that Congress will soon pass new Law (Amendment to the Constitution) allowing foreign born USC to be elected as Presidents and Arnold Schwartznegger may then be on his way to hold highest office in US, and first foreign born man to do so.
    Whether he will be on ballots in 2008 or 2012 or anytime later is another question.


    _______________________________

    Comment


    • #3
      I may be quite liberal when it comes to immigration issues, but I still believe that birth in the US should be a prerequisite for the presidency. Perhaps it's my conservative blue-collar upbringing shining through......LOL
      Have a nice day

      Comment


      • #4
        I see where you're coming from Glühbirne, but personally I don't think that being a natural born citizen should be an issue. There are some that claim that the clause was inserted in the Constitution in the first place by enemies of Alexander Hamilton who didn't want to see him assume the Presidency (he was born in the West Indies, although he could well have been a US citizen by the time the Constitution was ratifed?). In any case, I'm not sure that it's fair that the physical location of your mother when she gives birth to you should prevent you holding that office (admittedly it's highly improbable someone would in any case!). Even those whose parents are 'American through and through' but happen to be living somewhere else at the time of your birth would be disqualified. And what does that provision in the Constitution mean to the whole issue of immigration? If an immigrant to the USA, who may only know America as their home and loves their adopted country beyond measure, can never hope to attain the most prized position in such a great democracy, doesn't that make all immigrants second class citizens?

        I would favour an amendment which states that a President must have been a US citizen for at least 30 years or something like that.

        But I don't think Arnie should be President

        Comment


        • #5
          Not being able to become president hardly makes one a second-class citizen. I think holding any other office is fine........just not president. I see your point of view, but I would never vote for a naturalized citizen for president, even if that person was legally free to run. I think that a person who's going to be the leader and representative of the United States needs to be a born and raised in this country. I don't care what race or *** that person is, just that they grew up in America and fully understand the American experience. Arnold can love America more than anyone, but he grew up in Austria. He's an American in his heart, but he's also an Austrian in his heart. No ceremony can change who someone is. I could go to another country and naturalize there, but that wouldn't change my "americanness." I could become an American-German or an American-Mexican, but there's no way I could ever lose the "American." It's naive and foolish to think that anyone could completely loose thier roots. That's not to say that I would call naturalized citizens any less American as anyone else..........certainly not. They're just American plus!! An Austrian-American is not necessarily less American than I am, but he is certainly a lot more Austrian.

          Peace
          Have a nice day

          Comment


          • #6
            Let me offer a counter-argument to Glühbirne.

            Person A is born in the U.S. and moves to Belgium with her parents at age 2. She lives and grows up in Belgium but moves back to the United States when she is 50. She becomes involved in politics and when she is 64 decides to run for president.

            Person B is born in Belgium. She moves to the U.S. when she is 2 with her parents. She eventually is naturalized and lives her entire life in the U.S., not really knowing anything about Belgium because she left when she was so young. When she becomes 64 she would like to run for president but is unable to because of U.S. law.

            I would argue that Person B has more "Americanness" than Person A (even though Person A is the USC). Person B "grew up in America and fully understands the American experience". Person A grew up in Belgium and lived most of her life outside America. But, only Person A can run for president.

            Comment


            • #7
              There's really no way to easily test "Americanness", hence the simple test of birth. Is it a good one? No, for the reasons you mention. But it's really the only one we've got. [And, even if the child was born abroad, and raised here, she is still being raised by immigrant parents, which also affects what you're calling "Americanness", while the child who was born abroad to American parents is being raised by them. The parents' culture is at least as important as the culture in which all live.]

              Comment


              • #8
                There are millions of U.S. citizen children born to naturalized citizens in this country. These kids are all free to run for president, despite being raised by their parents' "culture".

                Comment


                • #9
                  See that is why I think the Constitution has that problem. You can be 'raised' in America from the age of 10 days, have 'American' parents whose families came over to the new world on the Mayflower, but can never be President because your mother happened to give birth to you whilst she was attending a conference in Toronto (weird example, but first one that came into my head!!). I can completely see why it was put in, partcularly at a time when the founding fathers were trying to put together a strong new nation, but perhaps in this day and age, with easier global transportation and different migration patterns, the clause is a bit outdated.

                  I can completely understand the point of view that the President should be someone who has been raised in the US, but I don't think that place of birth, which the individual can do nothing about, should affect it. Let the electorate decide for themselves whether the person is suitably 'American,' without putting this legal barrier in. And perhaps in this day and age, with the world being a smaller place due to mass communication, a President with experience of a culture outside of the US may be beneficial, as like it or not, the US is an important partner in the global community. Which is why I think it would be interesting to see Teresa Heinz Kerry as the First Lady.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Good points Spursgirl79.

                    It is hard to imagine former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger as being unAmerican, both being born outside of the United States. Interestingly, the order of succession if the President were to die is Vice President, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and Secretary of State.

                    In other words, Albright and Kissinger were 5th in line to assume the presidency but would have been unable to given current U.S. law.

                    Others have argued that Barry Goldwater was ineligible to run for President because he was born in Arizona before it became a state and John McCain was ineligible to run because he was born on a U.S. military base in Panama.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "*My projection is that Congress will soon pass new Law (Amendment to the Constitution) allowing foreign born USC to be elected as Presidents and Arnold Schwartznegger may then be on his way to hold highest office in US, and first foreign born man to do so."

                      Dumbest thing I ever heard, will never happen.

                      Everyone knows Maria is really in charge. Just like Hilary was.

                      For naked pics of Ahnold, go to:

                      www.rotten.com
                      Sweet Madame Belu

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X