bigfoot66
bigfoot66
Joined: Feb 5, 2010
  • Threads: 52
  • Posts: 1572
March 14th, 2012 at 10:15:51 AM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

I hope that Ron Paul does the decent thing and quits once he is incapable of winning. I also hope that Gingrich will quit before the big set of primaries on 6 June. I think they should give someone a chance at the majority.



Why do you care if Dr. Paul quits? I am one of his supporters and have given him several hunderd bucks which is probably more than my budget allows for, but I would no more vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich than I would vote for Obama, and honestly I have been a Republican my whole adult life but I am not convinces President Santorum would be any better than President Obama. I can't think of one of my Ron Paul supporting friends who feel differently. Even if he dropped out, I'm still wearing Ron Paul t-shirts and the bumper sticker stays on my car. Who do you think Paul's supporters turn to?
Vote for Nobody 2016!
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11260
March 14th, 2012 at 10:45:13 AM permalink
Quote: EvenBob

Do you prefer the grape or the cherry Kool Aid? Are
you reading right from the Dem talking points list or
do you have it memorized?



My guess is it is memorized. People stuck in the Obama Cult of Personality are great at chanting the same few points over and over.

As to the primary, it looks as though Romney is going to grind his way to victory, like a team up by 11 points in the begining of the 4th quarter. The upside is that he will have learned how to win a long contest, unlike McCain and Dole who walked to the nomination. His team will have mastered the art of the attack ad, which will be used against them in bulk--another thing McCain never bothered to learn.

Ron Paul will hang around, which is fine. Hard not to like something he says, it is just that his foreign policy is off the charts neither left nor right, just kind of crazy.

Rick will glide to perhaps headding up Health and Human Services. This would be good, he has good views and can shake up things there. Supporters of endless welfare will scream, but they complain about anything.

Newt probably would not take a job in the adminsitration. As Veep he brings little to the ticket as the South will go GOP no matter what. A rising star needs to be Veep, Newt represents the past, not the future, of the party. A shame as he is a thinker.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
thecesspit
thecesspit
Joined: Apr 19, 2010
  • Threads: 53
  • Posts: 5936
March 14th, 2012 at 11:45:28 AM permalink
Quote: WongBo

Though I do not think Obama has been a particularly great president, I think he has been far better than the worst president ever, George W Bush
I think it is great that the republicans can't come to a consensus, that they think they need to run as far to the right



Why should any large party be able to come to an instant consensus? I don't understand why Democrats think it's a weakness that the right is taking their time to argue and debate over who should represent them. It's not per se. Debate on the big issues of conservatism helps all sides grind out their ideas and core fundamentals. And the American Republicans really do need a clear, broad policy, which allows them to offer something different to the Obama platform; as then the Americans might be able to show a clear broad direction to themselves. Is healthcare private or public? Is foreign policy interventionist or protectionist?

Can you "reform" Washington (I doubt it... Romney nor Obama are radical enough to reform it any direction).

An outright rejection of a fiscal and social conservative president would be interesting and set a clear stage for what American Politics could be, as would be a large acceptance of such a candidate.

I suspect though it's more a vague centrists approach, with divisive politics over small differences. That's the worst of both worlds.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
pacomartin
pacomartin
Joined: Jan 14, 2010
  • Threads: 649
  • Posts: 7895
March 14th, 2012 at 9:10:57 PM permalink
Quote: bigfoot66

Why do you care if Dr. Paul quits? I am one of his supporters and have given him several hunderd bucks which is probably more than my budget allows for, but I would no more vote for Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich than I would vote for Obama, and honestly I have been a Republican my whole adult life but I am not convinces President Santorum would be any better than President Obama. I can't think of one of my Ron Paul supporting friends who feel differently. Even if he dropped out, I'm still wearing Ron Paul t-shirts and the bumper sticker stays on my car. Who do you think Paul's supporters turn to?



My comments apply to any candidate (Republican or Democrat) who campaigns after they have no mathematical possibility of winning. The ethical thing to do is to stand up and say I have run a good race, I've made my points to the country and the party, and I want to allow someone to clinch the nomination before the convention.
AcesAndEights
AcesAndEights
Joined: Jan 5, 2012
  • Threads: 67
  • Posts: 4298
March 14th, 2012 at 9:22:16 PM permalink
Quote: pacomartin

My comments apply to any candidate (Republican or Democrat) who campaigns after they have no mathematical possibility of winning. The ethical thing to do is to stand up and say I have run a good race, I've made my points to the country and the party, and I want to allow someone to clinch the nomination before the convention.


I disagree. Ron Paul has a message of Liberty that he wants to get across to as many people as possible. He may no longer have much of a chance of winning the nomination, and at some point he will probably fail to have even a mathematical chance...but that doesn't mean he should drop out. By accumulating delegates and showing up to the convention with them, he can make his message be heard to a certain extent.
"So drink gamble eat f***, because one day you will be dust." -ontariodealer
reno
reno
Joined: Jan 20, 2010
  • Threads: 124
  • Posts: 721
March 16th, 2012 at 7:59:38 PM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

What is extreme about Santorum? Please cite some statements or positions.



Santorum is now promising to prosecute Hilton and Marriott for offering dirty pay-per-view movies to their hotel guests. I remember the good ol'd days when Republicans respected the Constitution enough to let the free market decide which movies could be viewed in hotels without government interference. If he promised to prosecute fast food chains for selling salty fatty foods with too much sugar, (like NYC mayor Bloomberg) Republicans would speak up, right?
Triplell
Triplell
Joined: Aug 13, 2010
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 342
March 17th, 2012 at 9:46:47 PM permalink
I am very conservative, went to college, graduated with a degree in engineering. And I don't like to choose a party, because I think there are so many different issues that I agree/disagree within the parties about.

First off, covering contraceptive for woman under health insurance should occur if they can't afford it. If a woman can't afford birth control, than she can't afford a child, and as a taxpayer, I would rather foot the bill for the birth control than the child (because you know you will)... There is one thing to say "Hey, I don't think insurance should cover birth control", which is what AZDuffman is saying, and then there is what Santorum said, which sumarized, is that birth control is wrong because it's not natural... Eating anything with preservatives isn't natural...Using synthetic motor oils isn't natural..Just because something isn't natural, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Next we have gay marriage. I'll tell you out right, I am the biggest homophobe you'll ever meet. But not Gay people that act normal towards me. It's the extremely flamboyant "fags" who are overly opinionated, talk like a valley girl, etc. But if two gay people want to get married...fine by me.

As for discouraging students from attending college, I again will disagree with this. If you know "This is what I want to do the rest of my life, and I don't need a degree to do it"..then go right ahead and skip the college experience. If you don't want to attend college, then don't...maybe you will eventually, maybe you won't. But discouraging someone from going to college? That's like discouraging a healthy, married man/woman from going to the gym.

"You want to join a gym? That's a stupid idea. You're already married, no need to be sexually attractive...and you're not unhealthy...no no..You shouldn't join a gym"...

"You don't know what you want to do with your life? Well don't goto college. I mean, you surely won't find any answers their. You should probably try to just achieve somewhere around 50% of your expectations..You know, try to become manager of the grocery store or something..."
boymimbo
boymimbo
Joined: Nov 12, 2009
  • Threads: 17
  • Posts: 5988
March 17th, 2012 at 10:13:08 PM permalink
I'm a left winged liberal Canadian nut job. Gay marriage has been legal here for years. Most, if not all prescription plans, cover both contraceptives and erectile dysfunction medication. Tuition fees are tax deductible. So are piano lessons, sports programs, and pretty much anything that enriches the lives of our children. Canadians get up to 52 weeks paid (up to $485/week) parental leave for babies. And yeah, we pay higher taxes.

Santorum is conservative - we get it. But most Americans have accepted contraception as a way of life. Gay marraige is still very much a debate in America, and probably should be. And of course, of fu**ing course, we should be encouraging all Americans to attend college, if possible, just to compete with China and India. Just because you get smart in college doesn't mean you automatically brainwash you into a Blue State democrat. But there's a reason why urban centers tend to vote more liberal than the rest of America -- they're generally smarter!!! ;)

The Republicans are missing a down-to-earth candidate that appeals to the broad base -- liberatarian - strong proponent of less government. -- fiscal conversative - agrees not to raise taxes, ever, but to shrink government -- moral conversative -- believes that abortion is wrong, that pornography is backwards, and so on and so forth, but doens't want to turn back the clocks. If Romney could come down to earth and appear to be more common, he would have a good shot at Obama.
----- You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
brianparkes
brianparkes
Joined: Feb 26, 2012
  • Threads: 9
  • Posts: 74
March 19th, 2012 at 3:09:04 AM permalink
The Republicans did have a down-to-earth candidate. Huntsman. But he wasn't a "fire-breather" and wasn't speaking the correct language (tended to agree with scientific findings) and the base wouldn't give him a chance because of it.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 219
  • Posts: 11260
March 19th, 2012 at 5:04:48 AM permalink
Quote: brianparkes

The Republicans did have a down-to-earth candidate. Huntsman. But he wasn't a "fire-breather" and wasn't speaking the correct language (tended to agree with scientific findings) and the base wouldn't give him a chance because of it.



"Didn't agree with scientific findings?" By that you mean he believed there is global warming?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others

  • Jump to: