Oldiesfreak vs. Ted Bundy

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Two YANKEE REPUBLICANS/prominent supporters of Nelson Rockefeller.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

Oldiesfreak/Oldiesfreak

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 1, of course.

[MATTROSE94]

Oldiesfreak (Sane.)

[ElectionsGuy]

Oldiesfreak (Sane.)

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

Is this self-parody?  I can't quite tell.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'm guessing that this would be a primary race. What are the main focuses of the campaigns? Bundy has charisma, obviously, and according to Wikipedia was seen as "a firm believer in the system". Nevertheless, due to his history of support we can count on an amount of liberal republicanism mixed in with support for whatever overseas war we happen to be engaged in. I'm thinking he might be a Giulianiesque type character when it comes to political positions, coupled with a sort of West Coast,  more laid-back style, and loads of charisma.

Oldies, meanwhile, will be to the right of him on various social and cultural issues, though possibly to the left of him on rhetoric, especially when it comes to party inclusiveness. Definitely pro-life, though economically moderate, maybe even making Bundy the overall more right-wing of the two.

Now, assuming Bundy can keep his skeletons in the closet, and that no third wheel tea party type emerges, I think he can do solidly against Oldies when it comes to the debates. He has experience on his side and apparently some sort of charm with women, and he has a record of being successful in a state more liberal than Michigan. Nevertheless, in an alliance with the religious right, the Oldies campaign will organize a series of attacks on Bundy's "hedonistic" social life.

Bundy, with a coalition of the West and the North-East, manages to beat Oldies in a brutal two-way race.

Former Government Employee Theodore Bundy of Washington
Internet User Oldiesfreak1854 of Michigan

However, a mere days after the convention, where a Bundy/Scarborough ticket was nominated, crippling evidence would come forward pinning Bundy as a serial killer back home in Washington. Stepping down from the ticket, former Congressman Joe Scarborough would, in an effort to unite the party and create a new more moral spin on things in the light of Bundy's situation, invite Oldies to join the ticket. The Republicans, however, wouldn't recover from the damage their original nominee had inflicted by election day.

President Barack Obama, II (D-IL)/Vice President Joseph R. Biden (D-DE) 472 electoral votes, 58% of the popular vote
Former Congressman Joseph Scarborough (R-FL)/Internet User Oldiesfreak (R-MI) 66 electoral votes, 40% of the popular vote
Write-in: Former Government Employee Theodore Bundy (R-WA)/Former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM) 0 electoral votes, 2% of the popular vote

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Didn't Scarborough represent the same district Ted was arrested in?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Didn't Scarborough represent the same district Ted was arrested in?

Don't know. But I do know that some chick was apparently found dead in Scarborough's office, so I figured he'd be a good VP choice.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Didn't Scarborough represent the same district Ted was arrested in?

Don't know. But I do know that some chick was apparently found dead in Scarborough's office, so I figured he'd be a good VP choice.

Yep

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the best "unity ticket" would be Ted Bundy/Bob Martinez, considering that it was Martinez who, as Governor, managed to fry Bundy. Talk about "putting differences aside"

(Btw, I checked districts, Ted was nailed in FL 2nd)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

I'm relieved so many white racists would never associate themselves with the Party of Lincoln...

Oh wait.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

It won't matter what the GOP's position on gay marriage is then, because it will be a settled issue.  Likewise, slavery and segregation are settled issues now, and so Democrats' stance on them today is irrelevant.  When it was an actual issue, the vast majority of Democrats supported slavery, and although most Democrats may have come around to supporting civil rights, most of the support for segregation also came from Democrats (most of whom never switched parties, contrary to the left's alibi.)

[ElectionsGuy]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

It won't matter what the GOP's position on gay marriage is then, because it will be a settled issue.  Likewise, slavery and segregation are settled issues now, and so Democrats' stance on them today is irrelevant.  When it was an actual issue, the vast majority of Democrats supported slavery, and although most Democrats may have come around to supporting civil rights, most of the support for segregation also came from Democrats (most of whom never switched parties, contrary to the left's alibi.)

All the democrats that supported slavery and segregation are either dead or changed their mind as the public did. The democratic platform is completely different from 50-150 years ago. All if not most republicans 100 years from now will support same-sex marriage. Issues of the times don't translate into that party always sticking by a principle.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

It won't matter what the GOP's position on gay marriage is then, because it will be a settled issue.  Likewise, slavery and segregation are settled issues now, and so Democrats' stance on them today is irrelevant.  When it was an actual issue, the vast majority of Democrats supported slavery, and although most Democrats may have come around to supporting civil rights, most of the support for segregation also came from Democrats (most of whom never switched parties, contrary to the left's alibi.)

All the democrats that supported slavery and segregation are either dead or changed their mind as the public did. The democratic platform is completely different from 50-150 years ago. All if not most republicans 100 years from now will support same-sex marriage. Issues of the times don't translate into that party always sticking by a principle.

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

It won't matter what the GOP's position on gay marriage is then, because it will be a settled issue.  Likewise, slavery and segregation are settled issues now, and so Democrats' stance on them today is irrelevant.  When it was an actual issue, the vast majority of Democrats supported slavery, and although most Democrats may have come around to supporting civil rights, most of the support for segregation also came from Democrats (most of whom never switched parties, contrary to the left's alibi.)

All the democrats that supported slavery and segregation are either dead or changed their mind as the public did. The democratic platform is completely different from 50-150 years ago. All if not most republicans 100 years from now will support same-sex marriage. Issues of the times don't translate into that party always sticking by a principle.

Then why were Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings making racist statements as recently as 2001 (when Byrd used the term "white nig**r" in a Fox News interview)?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Ted Bundy was a Republican

Therefore all Republicans are and will forever remain the Party of Sadistic Serial Killers /Oldiesfreak's logic

Not true.  Ted Bundy was an anomaly.  The vast majority of Democrats, however, were supporters of slavery and segregation at one point.

Plus, slavery and segregation are (thankfully) in the past.  Serial killers are still around.  So if Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation when they actually existed, then that will never change.

It's still irrelevant in today's politics.

How?  It's part of their history, and I wouldn't want to associate myself with a party like that, no matter how long ago it was.  And I have plenty of other reasons I oppose the Democrats of today.

In the future, when the liberals succeed and gay marriage is the law of the land, both parties accept it, blah blah blah, will someone 150 years from now use today as a reason for a gay person never to vote for the Grand Old Party?

It won't matter what the GOP's position on gay marriage is then, because it will be a settled issue.  Likewise, slavery and segregation are settled issues now, and so Democrats' stance on them today is irrelevant.  When it was an actual issue, the vast majority of Democrats supported slavery, and although most Democrats may have come around to supporting civil rights, most of the support for segregation also came from Democrats (most of whom never switched parties, contrary to the left's alibi.)

No, they just started to vote solidly Republican in presidential elections, then congressional and then local.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

There are only a couple of poster's where I'd go the Bundy route......but not oldies