I'm terrified about what could happen if the US elects an R President in 2016

[struggle4progress]

Tricky Dick scared the living shizz out of me because he was a corrupt lying fuggwad

And it's all been downhill from there: these people have an agenda, and they plan to move it forward

Ronnie was even worse than Tricky Dick because Ronnie brilliantly performed as an empty suit fronting for a gang of rightwing ideologues behind the scenes

And I've never been more scared than I was in the Dubya years

Next time it will be worse

[guillaumeb]

1. The right-wing agenda has been moving forward since the 1960s.

Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. But the range of political discussion is steadily moving right. At least in Washington D.C. and in the media.

It is scary to think that George W. Bush looks better compared to Huckabee, Paul, Walker, Jindal, et al.

[Rex]

2. Yeah if only someone would have held Reagan responsible for Iran-Contra or

protested enough after the 2000 thefts, oh well right? Seems like they always get let off the hook and we have to worry about 'the next one'.

Guess that fear just should be accepted, since we never hold Republicans responsible for high crimes while in office. We sure did Bill Clinton...(which was a GOP farce and not criminal at all) geez, why can't we have equality between the parties when it comes to how they are treated over crime?

What gives here?

[Terra Alta]

3. I am too, which is why we need to unite behind the Democratic nominee

Once the primary is over and the nominee has been chosen, we need to unite behind that person, and GOTV for the general and vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election. Every vote counts. A Republican in the White House would be a nightmare.

[Initech]

4. A Bush / Walker presidency? We might as well declare the next Great Depression now.

That combo will be like dropping a nuclear bomb on the middle class. And unlike the last depression, this one won't be easy to get out of.

[golfguru]

25. Jeb Bush & Scott Walker are RINO's

They are not much different than Hillary Clinton.
Only one that scares me is Ted Cruz. He even resembles
Joseph McCarthy.

[Initech]

26. Ted Cruz has no chance in hell, and neither does Mike Huckabee.

Religious extremists like that never make it past the primaries, and if they do....

[SummerSnow]

59. Don't forget Ben Carson , he's a religious extremist

[Initech]

61. Ben Carson is this year's Herman Cain.

His campaign is a distraction, nothing more. Although I don't think anything will top Herman Cain's bizarre 2012 campaign.

[AlinPA]

88. Kochs and Adelson will decide the primaries. If they think either can win, they will fix it

for them. IMO. they are not the favorites of Kochs and Adelson. Probably Walker.

[Flying Squirrel]

32. What scares me is that they SEEM to be not much different than Hillary Clinton

And that may be enough to get either one elected, after which we'll see their true colors ala GWB. Not to mention the obvious effect on the Supreme Court, probably for the rest of my lifetime.

[workinclasszero]

64. Wow really?

[Flying Squirrel]

65. Really what?

I didn't say they ARE NOT much different, I said that they SEEM that way -- not to me, but to the average low-information voter. Is that better?

I obviously know there's a clear difference or I wouldn't be dreading the possibility of a Jeb Bush or Scott Walker presidency.

But I believe low-information voters, who make up an ever-increasing percentage of the total pool, will have a harder time distinguishing Hillary from Bush or Walker than they might have distinguishing someone who is less establishment and centrist, and more of a true populist.

[Agschmid]

70. I hate the term...

"Low information voter" it's like some kind of discrimination...

Is their vote worth less because they don't pay as much attention? You realize to someone else you might be what they call a "low information voter"... It's an insult, which seem to try to belittle the value of someone else's vote.

Clearly it's going to get used, but I hate it.

[Flying Squirrel]

74. Hmmm

I'll have to think on that... But my gut reaction is that anyone who truly believes that there's little difference between the two parties, who can be swayed by slick advertising and political commentary from the talking heads, or barroom conversations etc. instead of researching the issues thoroughly as many of us do, truly is a low-information voter. And no, I don't think their vote is worth any less - I'm just making an observation that America has been dumbed down and that process continues to create a more ignorant voting base - probably on purpose. The idea of not allowing supposedly "ignorant" people to vote, however, is a Republican idea. They know poor people favor Democrats and the poor have less access to quality education, and the Republicans truly believe that the poor are too ignorant to see that they should really be voting for them. IMO that is the real insult, when Republicans talk about "low-information voters."

[AlinPA]

89. There are Fox 'news" voters and "other media" voters. Media influences it all.

[JaneyVee]

34. What nonsense. They are polar opposites of Hillary.

From raising wages, to healthcare, to marriage equality, to immigration, etc. The list goes on and on.

[SidDithers]

38. ...

"Jeb Bush & Scott Walker are RINO's. They are not much different than Hillary Clinton."

Sid

[Godhumor]

42. That is just nonsense

Utter nonsense.

[yardwork]

83. Incorrect. People said the same about w and Gore and look what happened

JEB and Scott Walker would be terrible presidents. Having a Republican in the White House is much worse than having any Democrat there. Think of the Supreme Court, for instance.

[Agschmid]

69. Easy to get out of?

We had to go to war to get out of the last one!

[Initech]

73. Last time the war ended the depression. This time the war is causing the depression.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Truman had it about right:

"If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."

Turns out it's not *every* time, but the difficulty that the Third Wayers have had in holding majorities since they grabbed control of our Party shows that its *usually* true.

So let's get an FDR Democrat like Bernie at the top of our ticket.

[MrMickeysMom]

6. I'm glad you brought up Truman...

He also said this - Every segment of our population and every individual has a right to expect from our Government a fair deal.

[Katashi_itto]

8. +1000

[pnwmom]

14. Too bad he rejects the label of FDR Democrat for his preferred label of "Democratic Socialist"

He still has a chance to re-brand himself in a way that will appeal to more Americans, but I bet he will be too stubborn.

[F4lconF16]

16. Good.

He tells the truth. I'm glad he doesn't lie for votes.

Weird how that's something that seems to resonate with voters...

[pnwmom]

17. Are you saying it's true that he is NOT an FDR Democrat? Then Manny must be wrong. n/t

[F4lconF16]

21. No.

I think he's both. He generally espouses Demicratic Socialist values, which are largely in line with FDR Democrats' principles. But I also think he should be able to define himself. The political spectrum is not black and white. Nice try on the "gotcha", though--but I've seen better.

[frylock]

44. Because labels are what most voters are concerned with

[pnwmom]

56. Why do you think corporations spend money on advertising? Branding is important.

He's choosing to retain a label that might have been okay in the 60's or even 70's, but very few Americans identify with it anymore.

[Marr]

79. To people who work 60 hours/week and are still broke all the time...

...that 'Democratic Socialist' scare line really isn't very scary.

[pnwmom]

86. Most people aren't as smart as you, Marr. To them, the branding matters. n/t

[hifiguy]

47. Bernie is the closest thing to Harry Truman out there.

Like Harry, he's a plain-spoken champion of the average person.

[okasha]

58. Hiroshima. Nagasaki.

Truman was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. He loosed the demons of nuclear war, and we're not rid of them yet.

For the benefit of the metaphorically challenged, I am using "demons" in the figurative since.

[hifiguy]

60. Once The Bomb was developed its use was inevitable.

That's the way bureaucracies, especially governmental and military ones, work, And the debate as to whether more civilians would have been killed in an all-out invasion of the Japanese islands or by use of the atomic bomb is unresolvable

Curtis LeMay's firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than did the Nagasaki bomb. Modern war is always horrible.

[Marr]

80. You're suggesting that anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton will... nuke Japan...?

Ok...

[okasha]

84. No.

Haven't had your coffee this morning?

[okaawhatever]

7. One of the things that concerns me the most is that the economy is improving & is getting

ready to really expand. The president who is elected in 2016 will get credit for that (even though they won't have created it). If it is a Republican people will give them credit and think that Republican policies lead to a good economy. It will be near the end of their 2nd term before we start to feel the effect of the new GOP policies and by then it will be too late.

The Supreme Court is of paramount importance. I can't begin to fathom what will happen to this country if a Republican picks another 3 or 4 scotus seats. I think it's safe to say Roe v Wade will be overturned, then it's just a hop, skip and a jump to dominionism.

[yeoman6987]

10. What is nerve wracking is that voters

Have not given a three consecutive Democratic terms in 70 years? Give or take. I so very hope we make some current history in 2016.

[Quackers]

9. I think we will have a bright future if the Republicans take back the White House.

See!

[CentralMass]

11. In retrospect, Nixon was a pretty progressive president

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/richard-nixon-progressive/2013/01/18/edfb8d64-5e96-11e2-8acb-ab5cb77e95c8_story.html

"Nixon’s enduring domestic legislation, which created the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air and Water Acts, the earned income tax credit, Equal Employment Opportunity Act, Endangered Species Act and the Occupation Safety and Health Administration, among other progressive legislation. Indeed, in many respects Nixon was a demonstrably liberal president whose accomplishments in both foreign policy and domestic legislation were unfortunately overshadowed by Watergate"


"Nixon’s Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words"

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/nixon-proposal/

..and

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Richard_Nixon_Health_Care.htm

[struggle4progress]

31. No, Nixon was never a progressive. He was, however, talented at pushing himself

into the public view, using modern advertising techniques

Left to himself, without a liberal Congress to force his hand, he would have been content with such meaningless gestures as appointing a National Pollution Control Council, a Commerce Department body comprised solely of corporate executives

[onenote]

36. Its sad that someone could think the author of these statements was "progressive"

Nixon On Jews: 'Most of our Jewish friends, they are all basically people who have a sense of inferiority and have got to compensate.’

Nixon On African Americans: [In response to hearing they are "coming along" and will "strengthen the economy"] 'I think it’s wrong if you’re talking in terms of 50 years. What has to happen is they have to be, frankly, inbred.'

[hootinholler]

41. Nixon was anti health care 'reform'

Until someone explained how the HMO concept would look like reform while still extracting profit from illness.

[CentralMass]

45. You are wrong. Ted Kennedy help defeat Nixons universal healthcare plan and later regretted it.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/06/22/stockman/bvg57mguQxOVpZMmB1Mg2N/story.html
"Ted Kennedy, whom Nixon assumed would be his rival in the next election, made universal health care his signature issue. Kennedy proposed a single-payer, tax-based system. Nixon strongly opposed that on the grounds that it was un-American and would put all health care “under the heavy hand of the federal government.”

Instead, Nixon proposed a plan that required employers to buy private health insurance for their employees and gave subsidies to those who could not afford insurance. Nixon argued that this market-based approach would build on the strengths of the private system.

“Government has a great role to play, he said, “but we must always make sure that our doctors will be working for their patients and not for the federal government.”

No one breathed a word at the time about Nixon’s plan being unconstitutional. Instead, it faced opposition from Democrats who insisted on “single-payer.”

Over time, Kennedy realized his own plan couldn’t succeed. Opposition from the insurance companies was too great. So Kennedy dispatched his staffers to meet secretly with Nixon’s people to broker a compromise. Kennedy came close to backing Nixon’s plan, but turned away at the last minute, under pressure from the unions. Then Watergate hit and took Nixon down. Kennedy said later that walking away from that deal was one of the biggest mistakes of his life.

“That was the best deal we were going to get,” Kennedy told me before he died. “Nothing since has ever come close.”

[hootinholler]

49. If I'm wrong I'm not far off the mark:

In his own words.

[hifiguy]

48. Nixon was center-right, generally speaking, but no ideologue

like today's openly neo-fascist reichwingers. Mainly, ol' Dick was a shameless opportunist who carefully analyzed the prevailing winds to best figure out what would advance the interests of one Richard M. Nixon. Sometimes he tacked left, sometimes he tacked right. But he was always a liar and a cheap crook with the values and soul of a two-bit ward-heeler and the ethics of a hyena.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

12. What is happening is that the Oligarchs are dumbing down the population and, as

...I've said before, they are lowering middle class standards across the planet to bring everyone down to a nice profitable level.

It's all about money/profit and taking over the world.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

40. That...

... eom.

[hifiguy]

50. Thread winner.

This is EXACTLY what the long game is.

[longship]

13. A big step towards a de facto theocracy.

They already have a majority in state governments. They have both the US House and US Senate. If they get POTUS, they have it all.

It is very scary what the GOP could do with that. For one thing, kiss SCOTUS goodbye and all the rest of the checks and balances.

I have never been more afraid of an upcoming election.

Thankfully they are running another clown car. One hopes that they will not win.

[hifiguy]

51. The plutocrats may pay off the religulous loons in some way

in thanks for their decades of voting to cut their own throats economically. I shudder to think what might happen if they do.

[freshwest]

15. Frankly, I don't believe there will be a 'next time.' They'll bury the USA for good if they win.

The Article V convention the GOP along with the Koch brothers will bring us back to not only the days before the New Deal, but before TR, Lincoln, the Civil War and the American Revolution itself.

These guys intend to eviscerate eveything after the Bill of Rights, some even want a return all the way back to the Articles of the Confederation. The Constitution was an improvement on that, but it's what they want and are being funded to do and they are not going to stop.

Meanwhile, voters will stay home?

Then they can kiss their desires for ending income inequality and their other utopian schemes bye. It took centuries to get at the point we are now, an amalgamation of culture and influences, to create what we have worked on since the New Deal.

We have a framework to keep on fighting for the people. No one seems to care. When the dire wolf arrives at the door, it'll be too late.

[JayhawkSD]

18. We have to stop the fear mongering.

We have to stop living with fear as a way of life. We are terrifies of everything. Come on. This nation is stronger than that. I don't want a Republican, but we've had them before and we survibed them We will survive them again. We simply have to stop being a nation preaching actions based on fear.

[stevenleser]

33. We barely survived the last one. The economy almost disintegrated. The Middle East is

In total meltdown. People all over the world hated us. When I traveled during 2003-2008 my response to where are you from was a rapid "I'm an American but I oppose Bush policies including the war and protested against them." You had to get that out there otherwise the disgust with you would be palpable.

So no, the OPs premise is not hyperbole.

[JayhawkSD]

63. Hyperbole or not, fear is not a valid motivator.

If fear of Republicans is the only thing that Democrats have to offer then we are truely fucked.

We have to start selling our principles and policies, or do we not have any principles and policies to sell? Is the only thing we can do is sell terror of the boogeyman?

[stevenleser]

71. Fear is absolutely a valid motivator and should not be discounted

From the time we are born we have a number of fears we are born with that keep us alive. We add to those via experiences. Fearing a political party or a candidate from a political party we have strong negative experiences with is a completely valid motivator.

[JayhawkSD]

75. You must really admire George Bush, then.

He was the greatest fear monger of all time.

I am not a fucking coward, and I will never vote for one thing because I am afraid of another.

[stevenleser]

76. Nope. Like most other things in life, there is good fear and bad

The fear of a stove burner after you have been burned once is a good thing. That fear exists to keep us safe. Without that kind of fear the chance any of us would reach our 20s is very low.

On the other hand you have phobias which are fears that have grown to be completely unreasonable mental health issues.

Just because phobias exist and dictators use fear as a weapon doesn't mean fear is a bad thing or should be discounted. That's just silly.

We've been burned badly by the last several Republican administrations. The fear of having to go through another one is a good fear.

[JayhawkSD]

77. Well, you have not given me a reason to vote for a Democrat.

If that's all you got, I'm not in. I vote third party or I don't bother to vote. That was the Bush mantra. "Vote for me because the terrorists are coming." The nation did that, voted based on its fear, and that worked out really well for us, didn't it. Choosing based on fear never turns out well.

[stevenleser]

78. Fine with me. I never signed up for that responsibility. nt

[Skittles]

66. every time we "survive" repukes America goes further downhill

last time they stole a presidential election, drowned a city, allowed the biggest terrorist attack in American history, started two senseless wars, crashed the economy...........we do NOT need an encore

[sabrina 1]

19. Then vote for Bernie!

I'm terrified that if Hillary is the nominee your fears will come true.

[Binkie The Clown]

20. Sell you radio & TV, cancel the paper, and spend the next four years fishing in Alaska.

I'm afraid that if the electorate picks a Repub for the White House then they are probably getting exactly what they deserve, because they are clearly certifiable morons.

There's only so much we can do against a rigged game.

[Maedhros]

22. Yes. And the conservative elements of the Democratic Party

are counting on that fear to allow them to tighten their grip.

[lobodons]

23. GOP wins SCOTUS becomes 6-3 or 7-2 for next 30 years

IF Dems would have backed Gore in 2000 (90K votes for Nader in Florida alone) then SCOTUS would not so much be on the table in 2016. BUT the Dems F'd up in 2000. Don't do it again in 2016!!!!!!

[DFW]

24. I doubt we'll elect a Republican President. One could still take office, though

Think 2000 and 2004.

Winning the election is no longer enough these days. Taking office is no longer an automatic consequence of winning the election in this country.

[John Poet]

57. Especially when there's a Bush in the mix.

They aren't afraid to just TAKE what they want.

[Kablooie]

27. History indicates that a Republican president is more likely than not.

People usually vote for the opposite party after an 8 year run.

And since the direction of SCOTUS will probably be set for the rest of our lives by the next president it's more important than ever.

[Cha]

28. I don't think you're "fearmongering", struggle.. I think you're talking REALITY. It's true. Damn

straight one these fascist draconian clowns better not get in.

[gordianot]

29. Eventually a Republican will win the White House.

If they remain what they are now it will be a tragedy of enormous proportions. Even if a progressive wins in 2016 the threat remains with Republican Congress and constant threat of impeachment. The political threat posed by radical conservatives will not go away. Republicans will eventually destroy this country. I see no changing them and the seeds are permanently planted.

I will vote against them as long as I am allowed to vote.

[calimary]

30. You and me both!

Our nation can't afford it. We just can't.

[The_Commonist]

35. That's exactly what they want... for you to be terrified.

Either that, or outraged.
Either one is fine.
Preferably both!

Being constantly terrified and/or outraged keeps you reactive and ineffective, and constantly looking to salve the existential pain of always being terrified and/or outraged. Hopefully, you'll salve that pain by purchasing the New and Improved® Product™ Brand Thingie-Ma-Bob®, which just happens to be advertised from Amazon right here on Democratic Underground. It's your lucky day! Of course, there's always that State Farm Insurance ad, because your loved ones deserve the best when you die of a heart attack from all this stress. And there's that jobs board ad, because you also deserve to ALMOST be a member of the 1%!

Why do you do this to yourself? You know better. There are literally 1,000,000 other things that would be better for you to be thinking about at 11:36pm on May 10, 2015, than who is going to be elected president a YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW!!! You really should think about logging off of DU, and never coming back ever again. It's really not doing you any good.

Of course, there are literally 1,000,000 other things I should be thinking about on this Monday morning, so I'm gonna go do that... Bye!

[treestar]

37. Especially since all they have to do is nothing

We have to attempt to get congress to pass the bills that we want and that's not always happening. R's simply have to sit back and let the government "fail" so they can argue government is not the answer.

And the wars they will start come to mind.

[MineralMan]

39. We should all be scared of that.

It could happen, too. That's the true battle for 2016, because if the Republicans have control of all three branches of government, truly evil things will be the consequence.

[lostnfound]

43. There could be upside.

For example, I would drink myself to an early grave, and would not be around to see the demolition of Social Security.

A new Jon Stewart / Stephen Colbert satire would arise, and make me laugh so hard I'd forget about being so sick now that Medicare was gone.

My awareness of politics and knowledge of current events would skyrocket, because everyday I'd hear the latest fiasco and bits of outrageous corruption and incompetence, and feel compelled to watch it like the train wreck that was the Bush years. "Heckuva job Brownie!"

Liberal groups would get a resurgence of donations.

Geography knowledge would be enhanced, as school kids learn about the countries we would liberate.

That's pretty much the only upside I can think of. Seriously it was just a train wreck. And would be.

[KamaAina]

46. Hell, Tricky Dick created the EPA

And appointed Harry Blackmun to SCOTUS. Can you imagine any modern-day repuke doing that?!

[DCBob]

54. Things have changed.

dramatically.

[edhopper]

52. With the GOP holding Congress

you have every reason to be scared. Their agenda will destroy this country.

The rich will control everything and the middle class will be decimated.

And the idiot voters won't be able to figure out why.

[DCBob]

53. No doubt it will be worse, much worse.

The Republicans know the deck is stacked against them as the country turns more young, urban and non-white. They will do everything within their power, legal or not, to stop that trend even if it involves changing voting laws and procedures. They are like desperate animals and are capable of anything when backed into a corner.

Our number one priority is to ensure a Democrat remains in the WH even if the Democrat is not everyone's first choice.

[99Forever]

55. Nominate Bernie Sanders, problem solved.

You can thank me later.

[octoberlib]

62. I don't think we'll retain our Democracy if they win.

You've seen how they act in NC. They're controlling, sociopathic and hold Democracy in complete contempt.

[RandiFan1290]

67. The Democrats would fight for us!

They will block, obstruct, filibuster, and fight for us as long as it takes!










 

[Ken Burch]

68. Then work hard to elect whoever we nominate-even if it's Bernie.

If Bernie isn't nominated, you know perfectly well all of his supporters will be working our asses off for whoever does get picked.

We can elect anyone we unite behind.

[Adrahil]

72. I certainly will. But I think Hillary has the best shot, so I'm working for her. n/t

[Marr]

81. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

You can't let Obama off the hook because the presidency is so impotent, and try to scare people into supporting Hillary by raising the prospect of an all-powerful Republican president.

You have to pick.

[struggle4progress]

85. I have no idea what you're talking about and suspect you have no idea either

[Marr]

87. Sure, you don't.

[MineralMan]

82. We should all be terrified at that prospect.

With Republican in control of all three branches of government, the state will be set for severe regression of many things.