It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Republican monarchy?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
I'm just curious. Are the Republicans trying to orchestrate a Republican monarchy here? So that even though a single President cannot have more than two terms in office... they could have all the Republican Presidents they want in office? I'm not saying Obama is going to lose... I still think Obama has a good shot at winning... but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are.




posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm just curious. Are the Republicans trying to orchestrate a Republican monarchy here? So that even though a single President cannot have more than two terms in office... they could have all the Republican Presidents they want in office? I'm not saying Obama is going to lose... I still think Obama has a good shot at winning... but I'm just wondering what your thoughts are.


Well I whole heartedly suspect that since 2000 all options are on the table.
Maybe not in the Mccain camp per say, but with the party in general.

I was reminded the other day that during the 2000 primaries Bush's camp actually carpet called voter in some "southern state" to spread the rumor that Mccain had a "black baby"... IMO that is the slimiest S%#% I have ever heard of. Anyhow I think the Republicans depend on knee jerk reactions and reactive people.

If there is a war, terrorist attack, or likely voting machine fraud, FOX news calling the race... I would NOT put it past the HYPOCRISY of the Republicans. The DEM have some hypocrisy but not as putrid IMHO.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   
The reason that the Republican party has dominated the presidency for the last 40 years is that this is a center-right nation. The Republicans have a small, but significant structural advantage in the electorate. That's not to say they're guaranteed to win, far from it, but as the Dems have moved further to the left as a party during that period, they've weakened their position as a national party.

This is the reason that Dems run from the 'liberal' label, while Republicans usually embrace being called 'conservative'. Its also why Bill Clinton is the only Dem president to win re-election since Harry Truman in 1948 (I guess you could sort of count Lyndon Johnson in '64 as well; granted, it was technically his only victory as a presidential candidate). He governed as a moderate and had more appeal to mainstream America than a lot of their other more liberal candidates have had.

If the Dems want to start consistently winning presidential elections again, moving back towards the middle would help tremendously. They need to become the party of JFK again, not the party of Jimmy Carter or even worse, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by vor78]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by vor78
 

I've been thinking about this for a long time... but I just realized it might be because Republicans own a lot of the media. Thus they make the media pro-Republican when they are in charge so the Dems get frowned upon. With the media controlled by them they pretty much always win. And I believe they want the internet censored now.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by vor78
 

I've been thinking about this for a long time... but I just realized it might be because Republicans own a lot of the media. Thus they make the media pro-Republican when they are in charge so the Dems get frowned upon. With the media controlled by them they pretty much always win. And I believe they want the internet censored now.


Is that why 90% of the people in the media vote democrat?

You would think that there would be mass firings in the media with this Obama love fest going on.

As for the monarchy part, did you know that family relations has a lot to do with government control in a monarchy? All those queens, dukes, kings, and whatever are related somehow and pass the power with their bloodlines.....

Kinda like how Obama and Cheney are related, Bush and Kerry, and probably most of the Washington D.C. political elites. Its one big incestous example of monarchy.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join