GOP, circa 2012

Bobsama

Bobsama

Registered User
Joined
Jan 18, 2011
Messages
954
So, what's everyone think of the candidates so far? Think there's a chance to dethrone Obama?
 
I like:
Herman Cain. Ron Paul. Michelle Bachmann. Mitt Romney. Lots of selection for 2012.
 
Mitt is the only candidate I can ever see myself fully supporting on the republican side. If Rudy was to run I would throw support towards him as well. I like Pawlenty and Cain as well. and of course Ron Paul and Jimmy Mcmillian
 
I don't think any of them have a chance as of now. The biggest hurdle is not so much some of the candidates but the primaries; to get out of the primaries the current Republican candidate has to play to too many social issues that set them outside mainstream American viewpoints. Litmus testing candidates for abortion, environmental beliefs, high end tax cuts, undercutting valued social programs, etc is a really bad approach. It reminds me of 2004 -- the Democrats put forward John Kerry because he had some solid credentials and, in the primary season, he was anti Bush. Problem is, once out of the primaries, being anti someone else means you lack definition and make a weak candidate. The Republican party is in an identity crisis, and until that is solved it remains a touch too weak, especially if the economy picks up steam.

As I have said before, you cannot say we need less government and, at the same time, say we need more policing of social behavior. It is a contradiction that will keep the party weaker on a national election basis.
 
John Kerry??? No thanks.

Democrats have put themselves in a hole. They are spending too much; socially and medically. We don't need all these programs, we need people to take responsibility for themselves and work.
 
Soulzz said:
John Kerry??? No thanks.

Democrats have put themselves in a hole. They are spending too much; socially and medically. We don't need all these programs, we need people to take responsibility for themselves and work.
Click to expand...

Spoken by the one who does not know anything about who's spending what from the US budget. No matter what the current party, both are spending more than ever. Do some research instead of popping off with uninformed opinions.
 
Which is why I personally like Ron Paul and Herman Cain. Mitt Romney isn't my cup of tea. I really love Ron Paul's social stances; he doesn't want to advance ANYTHING at the federal level. I also like Herman Cain; he's not about welfare either and wants to switch to the FAIR Tax which, in theory, cuts out the entire bureaucracy of the IRS. I've read (though this is probably exaggerated) that the IRS takes a >20% cut of all taxes collected--to pay salaries and associated expenses. Recover even 10% and you're far closer to a balanced budget. The other thing I think needs to happen is the military needs to disengage wherever possible; the DoD budget is outlandish (and anyone caught saying that--except Ron Paul--will pay the consequences in the primary) when compared to years back. Most of that money will be saved in leaving Afganistan or Iraq; the tough thing is whether or not we've done a sufficient job to ensure liberty and a peaceful transition of government in either theater.
 
sixer9682 said:
Spoken by the one who does not know anything about who's spending what from the US budget. No matter what the current party, both are spending more than ever. Do some research instead of popping off with uninformed opinions.
Click to expand...

The problem is relative. If you're middle, you think both parties are at fault. If you're left, you think the right is at fault. If you're right, you think the left is at fault.
 
Soulzz: I never said I thought Kerry was a good candidate, what I said was he focused on being the anti-incumbent instead of what he brought to the table, a trap the Republicans are falling into. Also, Obama has pulled a Clinton and usurped the positions Republicans could hit him on in the center, so to be anti-Obama they have to move further right which hurts them in a general election (see his public position of tax code reform). Moreover, what spending Soulzz? Give me figures that as a percentage of GNP that government spending is out of whack with wartime footing? The budget issues of every administration are a combination of inherited ones and their own. It was the Bush administration and a predominantly Republican congress that cut taxes (on the high end) and vastly increased spending, a combination that, coupled with the social interference, made me a bystander in the current Republican party because that combination is a non-thinking, reactionary, uneducated, and sound bite approach to government that sacrifices future stability for for quick election results. And I think that will bury the Republican party in national elections until they can get refocused. As an example Soulzz answer me this. How old are you? Do you have health care coverage through your employer? If you answer <26 and no, then you can piggy back on your parents' health care because of health care reform. Say what you will, but when you start talking about removing that people don't like it, and it makes for a hard sell. The retort is we have a spending problem, to which the president can say I didn't drive the economy into the ground it was the previous group of leadership and at least I did something to try and help (and I think the larger economic issues were more cyclical in nature rather than any real policy decisions). Remember: George W took office with a healthy budget and left (via policies with tremendous Republican blessing) with a near terminal one.

Paul is un-electable on a national level because when you get down to it, there is no force that can provide physical and human infrastructure other than a federal government. That and many of his social views will eliminate him from the consideration of most immediately. And that is my point: I do not think the current group can compete nationally. The best hope at this point is Romney, but I think he is too Obama like for the current active base of the party in that he is highly educated and highly intelligent with a penchant for speaking over people and having a middle of the road, willing to negotiate-stances approach. Those are qualities that make good leadership (except for the inability to talk to people in a way they can relate to) but will get you crucified in the primaries.
 
Soulzz, figures are not relative, hyperbole is. What sixer was saying is cut the sound bites and provide support for statements. And for what it's worth the Bush era tax cuts gave me a few extra thousand dollars, which affects my spending habits not at all, so its not like that stimulated the economy.
 
Chuck, who would be your ideal candidate? If you don't have one, then what would your ideal candidate support?
 
Jon Huntsman is going live today. I don't know much on his actual policies, but his campaign approach might be the best to come forward and would definitely fly with younger people and the middle ground. Look, the left dems will vote for the president, the right republicans will vote for whoever gets out of the primary, so there is about 20 - 25% that could be in play. Whoever gets that middle group wins. And Rayzor, next up is religion.
 
Jon Huntsman? Never heard of him. I'll do some research on him :).
 
I don't like any of them; don't like Obama. He should have been focused on the ecomony instead of health care, something by the way that we don't need. Any time you have a majority party controlling the house, senate, & executive office a lot of BS is going to stem from it. After last fall you noticed after the Republicans won the house that things started to balance. Our country needs to quit spending money that we don't have, adding 1 Trillion for health care is stupid. I hope Obama doesn't get elected; but, it's sad that he is at this point.
 
Give me figures that as a percentage of GNP that government spending is out of whack with wartime footing?
Click to expand...

Except we're not at war and in fact have not been at war; yet since 2001-yes, almost 10 years, we have had a war time spending...doesn't that seem fucked up to anybody else?

I know a lot of people say we're fighting terrorists, but what do you really see happening there? Change of goverment? Securing oil fields? Antiterrorism? Building a government on foreign soil? Maybe all of the above and more, but try to tell me we're at war because that's total bullshit in the conventional sense. It was politically motivated from the get go since Bush felt like he had to act somehow and this was certainly dramatic and the President has no authority, last I heard, to declare war. I seem to recall Article One, Section eight of the Constitution states Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.
 
@Six: we have wartime spending and long term commitments/expenditures that only come from prolonged military involvement (human, financial, foreign policy). To me that is wartime expenditures and you have to account for that, which we didn't.

@Balls: you are right -- our government was designed to function with multiple checks so that anything that got though the federal government would have been through the wringer and as such have broad appeal. Any time you get one party in control of the presidency and both houses of Congress you have a problem. As far as health care, there is a significant issue (come to the south sometime) but I would rather see as much incremental change as opposed to sweeping change in one shot. The latter leaves open the possibility of too many problems. Obama (and Congress) needed to act on health care as it was a cornerstone of the campaign in 2008, but they also needed to realize that with the economy tanking in that campaign that some readjustment was necessary. That said, there is very little the federal government can do to help with economic trends as any action means greater government meddling which has a very mixed history. Economic issues are like a smoker; little tweaks can make a big difference in temperature and you need to make the adjustments small and give them time to play out. In short, always be careful of over-steering because you just might end up in a ditch.
 
sixer9682 said:
Except we're not at war and in fact have not been at war; yet since 2001-yes, almost 10 years, we have had a war time spending...doesn't that seem fucked up to anybody else?

I know a lot of people say we're fighting terrorists, but what do you really see happening there? Change of goverment? Securing oil fields? Antiterrorism? Building a government on foreign soil? Maybe all of the above and more, but try to tell me we're at war because that's total bullshit in the conventional sense. It was politically motivated from the get go since Bush felt like he had to act somehow and this was certainly dramatic and the President has no authority, last I heard, to declare war. I seem to recall Article One, Section eight of the Constitution states Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.
Click to expand...

People were crying for blood following September 11, 2001. We ended up in Afganistan because of that and it was ridiculously popular. Come 2004, Bush ended up with 50.7% of the popular vote. Staying in Afganistan for nearing 10 years now is a tougher decision to face. The fact that there have been active operations beyond basekeeping are ridiculous to me. Entering Iraq was still pretty damn popular. The wars started on our demands (and if you believe conspiracy theorists, Bush's actions and information planting).

Regardless, some very important things have been happening recently. I'll post mroe after my class.
 
sixer9682 said:
Except we're not at war and in fact have not been at war; yet since 2001-yes, almost 10 years, we have had a war time spending...doesn't that seem fucked up to anybody else?

I know a lot of people say we're fighting terrorists, but what do you really see happening there? Change of goverment? Securing oil fields? Antiterrorism? Building a government on foreign soil? Maybe all of the above and more, but try to tell me we're at war because that's total bullshit in the conventional sense. It was politically motivated from the get go since Bush felt like he had to act somehow and this was certainly dramatic and the President has no authority, last I heard, to declare war. I seem to recall Article One, Section eight of the Constitution states Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.
Click to expand...

and you scolded soullzz for spouting off with un-informed generalizations... Lovely..

Here's what the Merriam-Webster has to say about war:

1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
Click to expand...
War - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

we can sit here and debate the definition and interpretations of words, and call it what ever you want. That does not relieve the fact that there is a group of blood thirsty radical Islamic fundamentalists; "a bunch of angry fucking people" who HATE us because of the way we live, the liberties we enjoy, the things we are allowed access to, and the amazing men and women who make up this United States of America. Their "Ideology" justifies what they do as perfectly acceptable to humanity, The same way hitler's Ideology made it acceptable for him to commit mass genocide of the Jews. It's along the same pattern of thinking.

They are wicked disgusting evil people, and they have already proven that they are more than capable and willing to come to the United States and kill every man woman and child that they can. The Attacks on Sept 11th 2001 STILL should remind every person in America what our enemy is capable of doing, and that this IS a War, not some kind of politically charged spout of American Braun or Neo-Imperialism like news anchors on TV will tell you.


Congress did vote on the initial invasion of Iraq... It was virtually a unanimous decision by both republicans and democrats, if I remember correctly... please inform me If I am incorrect. seriously.

We are War.. on more than just one spectrum.

The cannon of what The American Military calls "War" is no longer the same Folda Gap Cold War Doctrine of past decades where we were standing toe to toe with another conventional superpower. The middle east is the most turbulent place on the earth look at the history there: the Iraq Iran War which claimed over 1 million people over waterway rights to oil export/import, violent civil and ethnic disputes, revolution, Coups, Martial law, throw Sharia law and a state sponsored religion into that mixture and you have a war far different from the Skies and Pillboxes of Normandy bro..


All of that bullshit I mentioned above aside, If we are there, we are going to capitalize on what we are doing over there..

Look at it Big Picture from a grand national strategy point of view:

We establish peace order and democracy by our presence there. Raise and establish a pro-westernized stable government who will work with us as an Ally. That makes us able to expand our strategic interests in and around the region, keep tabs on Iran, help out Israel in their "Alamo fight" against the whole Arab world. We get VIP access the host country's national resources, which comes with the "House" so to speak.They have a national identity, stable government, which they can support on their own behalf, and we have another region in the world where we can preserve our Hegemony as the global super power.


Regan said it best in this section of his speech.

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_3MiBI9ZRBo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Lex there's a big difference between a nation being at a state of war, or to say it another way a state of conflict, and declaring war. If you'll recall, Bush declared war which he had no authority to do at the beginning of these operations. Yes, we're at a state of war but we're not officially at war with anybody but if you ask the average US citizen they say we are and consider it the same thing which it is not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top