Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Awesome Republican Primary Thread
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 488 of 1485 (646421)
01-04-2012 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Artemis Entreri
01-04-2012 4:03 PM


Re: Things Conservatives Worry About
Tell the Kurds that Saddam had no WMDs. You haven’t a clue what you are talking about.
Yeah, those WMDs are terrible, it's a shame Saddam's good buddies gave them to him. Now who was that again?
He had them, he used them. Then he was forced to get rid of them. He had no more WMDs at the time we invaded Iraq.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Artemis Entreri, posted 01-04-2012 4:03 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 493 of 1485 (646446)
01-04-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Taz
01-04-2012 4:43 PM


Re: Bachmann ended campaign
But Santorum? Are you kidding me? I think having Santorum run against Obama would be comic gold! And it would lead, inevitably, to an Obama re-election. I call that a win-win...given our options.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Taz, posted 01-04-2012 4:43 PM Taz has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 541 of 1485 (648706)
01-17-2012 5:14 PM


Stephen Colbert-Cain
After polls showing Stephen Colbert with 5% support (more than Hunstman's 4%), he has become a candidate in South Carolina, though in name only, he's too late to get on the ballot. He's asked people who support him, since SC has open primaries, to vote for Cain as a proxy vote for him.
Should be interesting to see how far Cain gets resurrected.

Replies to this message:
 Message 551 by DC85, posted 01-19-2012 3:40 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 552 of 1485 (648978)
01-19-2012 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by DC85
01-19-2012 3:40 PM


Re: Stephen Colbert-Cain
I'm starting to think people just are not feeling Romney
Starting to, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by DC85, posted 01-19-2012 3:40 PM DC85 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 553 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2012 4:36 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 554 of 1485 (648985)
01-19-2012 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 553 by RAZD
01-19-2012 4:36 PM


Re: Perry bows out endorses Gingrich
They're dropping like flies. Now all we have are the Glove, the Lizard, the Leprechaun and the...um...Santorum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 553 by RAZD, posted 01-19-2012 4:36 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 594 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2012 10:25 AM Perdition has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 559 of 1485 (649001)
01-19-2012 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by 1.61803
01-19-2012 6:05 PM


Re: Atheists and Ron Paul......
Well Newt has converted to Catholicism so he wont be able to put away his current wife.
Why? He could get his marriage anulled, then marry whoever his current mistress (I presume he has one, if history is any indicator) happens to be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by 1.61803, posted 01-19-2012 6:05 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 579 of 1485 (649076)
01-20-2012 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 578 by 1.61803
01-20-2012 9:55 AM


I hope Newt gets the nomination, the Dem political machine will have ample fodder to make him squirm.
Just who, exactly, in the Republican field would the Democrats not have ample fodder for?
The only person, IMHO who had a shot at winning the moderates and undecideds against Obama was Huntsman...but of course the Republican base tried to get rid of him as fast as they could.
This year, the nominee will be Romney, since it's his "turn." Next election, it will be Gingrich (unless someone from a major family, like the Bushes or Reagans [fat chance there] decides top run.).
After that, if Santorum keeps trying, he may get a chance, but his name is literally mud (and worse) so it may be too much of a hurdle for him to actually overcome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 9:55 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 12:01 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 596 by DC85, posted 01-21-2012 9:31 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 581 of 1485 (649088)
01-20-2012 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by 1.61803
01-20-2012 12:01 PM


However Mitt Romney is the only candidate that doesnt seem batshit crazy.
I, too, believe that Mitt is the best option the Republicans have at this point, but with all of his changing stances, plus his approval of the Massachusets health care plan, many of the things the Republicans would have gone after Obama for are effectively neutralized.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 12:01 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 583 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 12:22 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 586 of 1485 (649103)
01-20-2012 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 583 by 1.61803
01-20-2012 12:22 PM


I must say I am honestly frightened at the prospect of a obstructionist, corporate social-con hawk getting elected.
We survived Bush II, we'll survive this, too. Though I too worry about the cost of survival under such an administration.
I honestly feel trepidation that people are so propagandized about the 'evils' of socialism and the perils of the lamestream media perpetuating the leftist agendas.
Honestly, I think the 'perils of socialism' really reflects an anti-European bias in this country. When we point out that the closest countries there are to socialism, like the Nordic countries, have the longest life-span, happiest citizens, and stable economies, despite being up near the Arctic circle and all of the mood killers that entails, we're usually told that there's something more at work, or that our data are flawed, or something.
I truly think people just don't want us to "copy" other countries, that we need to come up with the best system on our own. Members of Congress routinely denounce some of Obama's policies, or those of the more liberal members, as "European" as if that's some kind of insult.
Had Americans invented socialism, we'd probably be living it right now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 583 by 1.61803, posted 01-20-2012 12:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Rahvin, posted 01-20-2012 1:47 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 588 by dronestar, posted 01-20-2012 3:09 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 589 of 1485 (649114)
01-20-2012 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 588 by dronestar
01-20-2012 3:09 PM


Has much changed in america since the 18th century?
Yes. Especially since the Great Depression, there were laws and protections (those dreaded regulations Republicans like to whine about) that protected the poor and the middle class.
Sadly, many of those rules, because they worked, now seem to some to be protections against boogeymen that aren't real threats, and that somehow stifle business, so they're being repealed and rolled back and ignored.
So, what we need to do is bring our laws back to how they used to be after the Great Depression, not back to how they were in the 20s or before.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 588 by dronestar, posted 01-20-2012 3:09 PM dronestar has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 605 of 1485 (649557)
01-24-2012 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 604 by crashfrog
01-24-2012 8:32 AM


Re: Is any of them really electable?
It's probably 60% certain, but you can't underestimate the power of liberals to be complacent, or the caliber of the DNC's circular firing squad.
Exactly. I was all but certain that Bush II would lose to John Kerry, and somehow he pulled out an actual victory, both electoral college and a sheer majority of the voters. I don't tend to take anything for granted in politics any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 604 by crashfrog, posted 01-24-2012 8:32 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 613 of 1485 (650365)
01-30-2012 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 612 by Straggler
01-30-2012 3:10 PM


Re: AAAAAaaaaRRRggHHH!!!
What the fuck are you guys up to over there?
For one thing, we're in a primary season, which means the people running are trying to get the most pasionate voters of their party to vote for them (because those are the people who tend to vote in primaries). In general, that tends to mean running to the right in the Republican primary while then trying to move more centrist in the general election. For the Democrats, it tends to be the opposite, run left in the primary, then center out for the general.
For another, the Republican Party is fracturing. I've been seeing this in the works for a while, and there is still time to fix the party, but I don't see it happening. You've got the Tea Partiers, the neocons, the Religious Right, and the Libertarians all vying to be "the voice" of the Republican Party, and many of them hold, if not mutually exclusive views, then at least views that don't mix very well. The nominees have to try and wade that minefield, appealing to the Religious Right, who want an amendment banning gay marriage, while still appealing to the Libertarians who want the government as small as it can be, while also trying to appeal to the Tea Partiers who want lower taxes at all costs, and still kep the neocons happy, who want more money to spend on war.
I don't envy the nominees their job, but I seriously see, within 20 years, the Republican Party fracturing into four or five smaller parties. And I can see the Democrats following suit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 612 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 616 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:38 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 622 of 1485 (650378)
01-30-2012 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 616 by Straggler
01-30-2012 3:38 PM


Re: AAAAAaaaaRRRggHHH!!!
But the US seems to be in a particular right wing frenzy at the moment. The "middle ground" seems more to the right than anywhere else in the developed world. And the two party system seems to be moving ever "rightwards".
The reason for this is that the Republicans very effectively turned the word "liberal" into a dirty word. When you ask people in a poll if they're liberal or conservative, most will answer conservative. However, if you ask them for their views on specific topics, the mix of "liberal" answers and "conservative" answers is much more evenly distributed.
Republicans crow that America is a conservative country, and they're wrong. They also paint anyone who is even slightly to the left of themselves as a "liberal."
In the election before this last one (Kerry v Bush), the Republicans managed to label Kerry as the "most liberal senator" despite the fact that he was centrist at best. They then, 4 years later, turned around and effectively labeled Obama as "the most liberal senator" despite him being, again, centrist at best.
There is avery skewed vision, in America, when it comes to right and left policies. To the effect that, the definition of what's liberal and what's centrist has moved ever rightward, despite people's actual views remaining unchanged. The Republicans then have to "out crazy" each other on the rightmost fringes in order to appear firmly in the middle of what it means to be conservative.
And I'm not convinced that your multi-party prediction has a historical precedent.
There have always been two dominant parties in American politics, back to the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. And I suspect that will be the case into the foreseeable future. However, parties do and have fractured in the past. Usually, one faction, or even an entirely new party will take the place of the dominant one. But there have been moderately successful third parties. The "Know Nothings" the "Bull-Moose Party" and even the Republican Party, as it currently exists, was a third party at one time, combining former Whigs and some liberal, anti-slavery Democrats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 616 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 624 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:58 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 625 of 1485 (650381)
01-30-2012 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 621 by Straggler
01-30-2012 3:51 PM


Re: AAAAAaaaaRRRggHHH!!!
We have three reasons it appears so.
1) People often have a very strong party identity. "I'm a Republican." So that they will vote for "their" party's nominee, even if they actually disagre with the majority of that person's positions...which leads to...
2) People often have no real idea what the person they are voting for has said s/he will do if/when elected. They don't watch debates because they're boring. They don't watch or read unbiased news because it is tough to find and again, is often boring. The only info they do get is from political attack ads and the slanted news of their choice (Fox News or MSNBC) meaning they know less than nothing about their options, what they think they know is often not correct.
3) As I said, we're in a primary season, and the way to win a primary is to get the wing-nuts out to vote for you. The crazy, out-spoken minority that actually takes the time to vote in a primary or caucus.
The majority of people in the country are pretty centrist. Yes, that often means they're a bit further right than most Europeans, but there are enough of us lefties to help balance it out a bit. We're just not the ones screaming on street corners very often. We're more likely to be watching the news, reading news, or posting in blogs and fora.
The perception is not the reality. Take a deep breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 621 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 627 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 4:05 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3228 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 626 of 1485 (650383)
01-30-2012 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 624 by Straggler
01-30-2012 3:58 PM


Re: AAAAAaaaaRRRggHHH!!!
The relentless lurch rightwards has taken place here in the UK and (to a lesser extent) elsewhere in Europe too.
But the lurch is not as profound as it appears to be. Most people's views haven't shifted too far to the right, and even seem to be sliding slightly left again as the Great Recession has opened our eyes to the helpfulness of some sort of regulation and government safety net.
The demonification of anyhting "liberal" or "socialist" has led many liberals and socialists to fear a stigma, and so claim to be more conservative (and many even believe it, because if liberalism is evil, they can't be liberal...)than they really are when asked about specific issues.
There is a very vocal minority of crazy right-wing nutjobs, and they get the news, and because they get the news, they seem to be more prevalent than they are, leading the nominees to target these "masses" of people.
Your republican candidates would be considered absolute nutjobs in most Western democracies.
And at least half of Americans think they are, too. The sad thing is, even some who think this will vote for them anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 624 by Straggler, posted 01-30-2012 3:58 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024