GOP Nominee [Archive] - Page 3

PanzerJaeger

11-03-2011, 09:14

Y'all can purposely make strawmen out of my argument all day long, I really don't care. If you can't refute it, then you just look silly in my book.

Well, assuming this was directed towards me, I was not referencing you specifically. However, since you brought it up...

Tea Party isn't a "racist" organization, and I hope I never outright said that (if I did then that is my bad). However to deny racist undertones to it is imo disingenuous. Tea Party is just an extension of the Republican Party taken over from the libertarians under Ron Paul. The Republican Party is not homogenous, they have moderates, Christian bible thumpers of all degrees, business leaders and the hardcore southerner's who like to wave the Stars and Bars and yes, do have resentment at a black man for being president.

What is interesting is that the people backing Cain in Lemur's poll are the hardcore Southerners. The establishment, business types, and moderates have all gravitated towards Romney, while the hardcore Christians are split between Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. Those left are the less educated, populist base of the GOP - aka the Tea Partiers. They don't read the Wall Street Journal, but they listen to Rush religiously. They can't draw a simple Laffer curve, but they know taxes should be low. They'd be hard pressed to outline the differences between communism and socialism, but they know Obama is probably both. These are the people who were lambasted in the media for the last two years as obvious racists.

And yet, while those in the establishment cringe pretty much every time Cain opens his mouth, the Tea Party types have latched on to him in a way that they never did for Bachmann or even Palin, and his numbers have only gotten stronger since the sexual harassment scandal broke which indicates an enviable level of loyalty someone like Romney could only dream about. And in doing so, they've forsaken a Southern governor who has flirted with secession and holidays at a place called Niggerhead - the obvious choice if opposition to a black man in the White House is your prime motivaoer.

As I've said before, the Tea Partiers love a hard-line, populist conservative message with as few deviations from the dogma as possible, and they don't care who delivers it. To even claim racist undertones is getting pretty difficult to support.

Lemur

11-09-2011, 17:11

Finally, the nominees explained in terms an Orgah can understand: Dungeons & Dragons (http://www.funnyordie.com/lists/e0cb0351f6/presidential-candidates-explained-through-dungeons-and-dragons-character-sheets). -edit- Used Photobucket's editing tools to take out three f-bombs. Thought 1: Photobucket's tools are terrible. Thought 2: Hit refresh until bad language disappears.

EDIT BY COUNTARACH: Changed from images to links - still extreme language warning

Cainhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/cain.jpg
Romneyhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/romney-1.jpg
Perryhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/perry.jpg
Bachmannhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bachman.jpg
Santorumhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/santorum.jpg
Paulhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/paul.jpg
Gingrichhttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/gingrich.jpg
And just for giggles, Barry O'bamahttps://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/obama.jpg

Kralizec

11-09-2011, 17:31

Lemur: :laugh:

As I've said before, the Tea Partiers love a hard-line, populist conservative message with as few deviations from the dogma as possible, and they don't care who delivers it. To even claim racist undertones is getting pretty difficult to support.

I imagine that Tea Partiers who wave signs with racist slogans on them do so because it's offensive. If FDR was the incumbent president they'd be carrying signs calling him a cripple, and we would be disgusted by those, too. Of course a few of them are racists for real.

Vladimir

11-09-2011, 17:35

Re: D&D

Huh. Was really hoping for better comedy. Pretty lame.

Lemur

11-09-2011, 17:36

Huh. Was really hoping for better comedy. Pretty lame.
It could be funnier, agreed, but Ron Paul as a gnome berserker was worth the price of admission.

Vladimir

11-09-2011, 18:46

It could be funnier, agreed, but Ron Paul as a gnome berserker was worth the price of admission.

I've had lunch and am in a better mood. I hope I didn't slight you.

It's tough to get an appeal to geekdom right. It seemed a bit cliche to me.

PanzerJaeger

11-10-2011, 00:52

:grin:

I thought they were all pretty funny except the Obama one. It wasn't as cutting as the others...

PanzerJaeger

11-10-2011, 06:48

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 07:03

What is interesting is that the people backing Cain in Lemur's poll are the hardcore Southerners. The establishment, business types, and moderates have all gravitated towards Romney, while the hardcore Christians are split between Perry, Bachmann, and Santorum. Those left are the less educated, populist base of the GOP - aka the Tea Partiers. They don't read the Wall Street Journal, but they listen to Rush religiously. They can't draw a simple Laffer curve, but they know taxes should be low. They'd be hard pressed to outline the differences between communism and socialism, but they know Obama is probably both. These are the people who were lambasted in the media for the last two years as obvious racists.

And yet, while those in the establishment cringe pretty much every time Cain opens his mouth, the Tea Party types have latched on to him in a way that they never did for Bachmann or even Palin, and his numbers have only gotten stronger since the sexual harassment scandal broke which indicates an enviable level of loyalty someone like Romney could only dream about. And in doing so, they've forsaken a Southern governor who has flirted with secession and holidays at a place called Niggerhead - the obvious choice if opposition to a black man in the White House is your prime motivaoer.

As I've said before, the Tea Partiers love a hard-line, populist conservative message with as few deviations from the dogma as possible, and they don't care who delivers it. To even claim racist undertones is getting pretty difficult to support.

I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.

So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes. My main example was Steele. Most GOP voters, like Democratic voters, will vote whoever the establishment tells them too. So when the GOP and Fox News started hyping up Cain, everyone suddenly went, "oh yeah, he is a candidate and he looks good.". I am not saying the voters are the racist ones, although like I said in the part you quoted, they are there. And no, I don't think it is the hardcore southerner's supporting Cain. Just because he has the most support in the south doesn't mean it's the hardcore ones supporting him. Fact is that despite the GOP establishment hyping up Perry since his Jesus speech, he is actually looking pretty dumb out there and has been dropping like a rock. Those people went and attached to the "new thing", Cain.

EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 08:05

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

Oh my GOD :laugh4::laugh4:

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 08:10

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 08:15

How in the world is that racism?

How is it not? They don't actually care for Cain's policies, they are using him for the color of his skin and once he serves their purpose, they discard him by making him irrelevant. Using him for his skin color is racist.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 08:17

How is it not? They don't actually care for Cain's policies, they are using him for the color of his skin and once he serves their purpose, they discard him by making him irrelevant. Using him for his skin color is racist.

No it isn't :dizzy2:

What does using someone for their skin color have to do with racism?

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 08:26

No it isn't :dizzy2:

What does using someone for their skin color have to do with racism?

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 08:29

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

That literally has nothing to do with racism. When colleges put a diverse group of people on their brochures it isn't racism either.

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 08:35

That literally has nothing to do with racism. When colleges put a diverse group of people on their brochures it isn't racism either.

They are not giving anybody anything undue to them by putting more minorities on a brochure. When the GOP and Fox news make Cain relevant after several months of just standing around being that guys who hates muslims, they give him votes, just because he was a black candidate they can use for their purposes.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 08:44

They are not giving anybody anything undue to them by putting more minorities on a brochure. When the GOP and Fox news make Cain relevant after several months of just standing around being that guys who hates muslims, they give him votes, just because he was a black candidate they can use for their purposes.

There's NO racism there. I can't fathom why you think there is. Something isn't racist just because someone who is a minority is wronged.

Maybe I see it now, you mean that the fact that they never had a black candidate before is the evidence that they are racist, and that the cain nomination doesn't disprove it because they are making the decision cynically or something.

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 09:13

There's NO racism there. I can't fathom why you think there is. Something isn't racist just because someone who is a minority is wronged.

That isn't what I am saying at all. It is racist if the minority in question is wronged solely due to his race.

When a minority cuts someone off on the highway and that guy says the black person is an ***. That isn't racism. But if he is walking down the sidewalk and a black guys bumps into him and he is angered solely because a black man touched me, that is racism.

So the situation that we are talking about is this:

If Cain was popular because he was a good candidate who happened to be black, that's fine.
But Cain is popular solely because he is black. That's the difference. It all comes down to the reasoning. Lets make Cain popular. Because he has good ideas? No. Because he a strong candidate? No. Because he is black? Yes. That is racism.

As for the second statement, that wasn't what I was saying, but I would agree with that statement as well.

PanzerJaeger

11-10-2011, 09:20

I was banned for 3 days I forgot I wanted to reply to this.

So basically you quoted me from an earlier thread and the point I was making about the racism was different from the part you quoted from. My argument which I posted in this thread was that the racism comes from the GOP leadership who blatantly push out a black man into the spotlight when they want to deflect allegations of being the rich, white man party or for other political purposes. My main example was Steele. Most GOP voters, like Democratic voters, will vote whoever the establishment tells them too. So when the GOP and Fox News started hyping up Cain, everyone suddenly went, "oh yeah, he is a candidate and he looks good.". I am not saying the voters are the racist ones, although like I said in the part you quoted, they are there. And no, I don't think it is the hardcore southerner's supporting Cain. Just because he has the most support in the south doesn't mean it's the hardcore ones supporting him. Fact is that despite the GOP establishment hyping up Perry since his Jesus speech, he is actually looking pretty dumb out there and has been dropping like a rock. Those people went and attached to the "new thing", Cain.

Wait, you think the GOP establishment is pushing Cain?

EDIT: Hasn't Bachmann been polling lower than Ron Paul ever since the GOP establishment ditched her for Perry? I don't think she will be lasting another 6 months.

I think we need to define the 'GOP establishment', because I don't believe they ever backed Bachmann either.

The establishment (party strategists, DC insiders, beltway pundits, etc) traditionally backs moderate, electable candidates with an eye on the general. They were holding their breath for Christie and then fell in line behind Romney after the former declined to run.

The people who are bouncing between the Bachmann, Perry, and Cain are the anti-establishment, Tea Party types. They believe the GOP's problem is that it doesn't run candidates that are conservative enough, and they hope to unseat the establishment 'RINOs" and replace them with more ideologically pure candidates. They're the ones that cost the GOP the senate last cycle in places like Delaware, Nevada, and Colorado.

Ronin

11-10-2011, 12:45

It was funny at first but now its just painful to watch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6an4zSj8LhU

ibogaine is one hell of a drug....or so I hear.

Vladimir

11-10-2011, 15:50

That's pretty much a racist thing to do. It is what it is. Denying or giving something undue to someone based on race alone is racist. It doesn't need to have hate involved.

Wow. Examine your argument. Consider what party advocates that the most.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 17:23

As for the second statement, that wasn't what I was saying, but I would agree with that statement as well.

I think the only reason you're convinced of the other stuff you are saying is because of that...making a cynical advertising move is not racism and never will be.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-10-2011, 17:30

Oh my GOD :laugh4::laugh4:

I take this back. It's disgusting that someone like that can even get on that stage.

a completely inoffensive name

11-10-2011, 17:45

Wow. Examine your argument. Consider what party advocates that the most. I know what you are getting at and I agree with you. Problem?

Major Robert Dump

11-10-2011, 19:06

The gaffe about the agency Perry made on stage was no worse than the horde of flubs by Bush, and he was elected. Twice. I think Perry will be the next president, unless we are someohow suggesting we Learned a Lesson last time, which will immediately be forgotten when the next offspring of a politically connected family runs.

Ronin

11-10-2011, 19:13

I take this back. It's disgusting that someone like that can even get on that stage.

makes you wonder if the idea proposed in this video might be true:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqI2i_fIdP0
*warning - mild offensive language used in a comedic setting - expect a couple of F bombs.

"We can go dumber".

Sasaki Kojiro

11-13-2011, 04:16

Wow...Cain and Perry are such jokes, how are they on stage?

Also I felt like Romney didn't really know what he was talking about with the china currency manipulation stuff.

Nowake

11-15-2011, 02:16

You gang will "love" this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo

Q: So you agree with president Obama on Libya or not?
Cain: Okay, Libya...
President Obama supported the uprising, correct?
President Obama called for the removal of Gaddafi. Just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing before I say, "Yes, I agreed. No, I didn't agree"...
I do not agree with the way he handled it for the following reason:
No, that's a different one.
I got to go back... See... uh... I got all this stuff twirling around in my head.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-15-2011, 03:57

He was far worse in the debate, that interview isn't as revealing because it's such a dumb format for a question.

He really doesn't give any foreign policy except "I'll get all the information from a bunch of smart people and I'll compile it and then I'll decide what to do".

Nowake

11-15-2011, 05:15

But I was not trying to “top” that, this is merely the latest funny event in the Republican campaign :bow:

Personally, I find astonishing his inability to lie his way out of it and being rendered as speechless as a seven year old. No eloquence, no fast thinking from his part. Don’t get me wrong, over here we have much worse politicians; as human beings; amoral, vapid, callous. But almost to the last one they’re able to talk a Scotsman out of a penny as the Brits say. It’s the only requirement to run for elected office nowadays. But it is the one you can’t do without. You can get by without an educated opinion, but not without naturally faking it, if you allow me the oxymoron. This chap is just slow.

Cecil XIX

11-15-2011, 05:58

(emphasis mine)

Personally, I find astonishing his inability to lie his way out of it and being rendered as speechless as a seven year old. No eloquence, no fast thinking from his part. Don’t get me wrong, over here we have much worse politicians; as human beings; amoral, vapid, callous. But almost to the last one they’re able to talk a Scotsman out of a penny as the Brits say. It’s the only requirement to run for elected office nowadays. But it is the one you can’t do without. You can get by without an educated opinion, but not without naturally faking it, if you allow me the oxymoron. This chap is just slow.

This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign. I'd wager it's not so much his ability as his inclination; he simply doesn't want to dissimulate the way other politicians do. And what's wrong with that? Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?

That video is a case study in the exact opposite sort of attitude. It's easy to say that no one would pretend to be like that, but it goes further: Cain's not even bothered by his slow start-up. And it is the start-up, after the 1:15 mark he's fine and zeroes in on the key problem with Libya: the nature of the Libyan rebels we helped install. While I certainly would have preferred it without those long pauses in the beginning, I don't find this particularly troubling because once he gets rolling he gives what I'd say is a very good answer.

Nowake

11-15-2011, 07:16

This is actually an essential part of Herman Cain's success, and maybe the defining element of his campaign.
Why should it be a requirement for politicians to be able to dissimulate their way out of nasty questions from the press?
I get where you’re coming from. I think honesty can be seductive; in politics, you can always count upon it as the element of surprise. But I begin my train of thought from the premise that, when confronted with non-republican debaters (namely Obama) his lack of genuine concern and his pursuit of political power will show throughout, especially since his talking points coincide too much with the ones of too easily vilified pressure groups. Or at least, that is the way it will be framed and it is comfortably doable. Thus is there much hope for this strategy to pan out in the long term? It would be better to display constant intellectual confidence and wit; the current campaign lacks the display of statesmanship from the more visible candidates after all.

As to his eventual comment on Libya, hmm, I disagree. He asserts that he does not agree with Obama insofar he would have made sure he evaluated the Libyan opposition very carefully, and then ends up by saying he doesn’t actually know the depth of the governments’ analysis on the matter. To translate, “He is my opponent so I’ll say he mishandled it at least partially, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” Doesn't come through at all.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-17-2011, 07:49

[Cain] defended his view that presidents and presidential candidates don't need to be immersed in the fine print of world affairs - they simply need to be leaders who can surround themselves with the right people and sift through their advice.
"I'm not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I'd throw that out," he said, a dig at his critics.

:mellow:

Ronin

11-17-2011, 11:14

:mellow:

American Republican political moves are such a fun micro cosmos nowadays.....is there anywhere else where ignorance could be played as a campaign card?

P.S. - just remembered an example on the Democrats side: Kerry's campaign and it's downplay of his wife's international knowledge..like it was the mark of the beast or something.

Cecil XIX

11-18-2011, 20:32

The more coverage I've heard of this so-called Libya gaffe the more ridiculous it seems. I've listened to that clip again a few times, even watched the full interview, and I think he did a fine job. I have no problem with him pausing to put his thoughts in order, nor do I think it's a display of ignorance to confirm basic facts as a way to fill in the silence while you're thinking. And when he got rolling, he zeroed in on the important aspects of the quest. But that's just my opinion.

If you were look at the media, both 'mainstream' and 'conservative,' you'd think that the opposite opinion is simply a matter of fact, as if it had been confirmed by some higher authority that Herman Cain made a gaffe. But in the end that's their opinion as well, and I wish they'd recognize it. If there's one thing I've learned from this is that conservative media is capable of using the same dirty tricks as the MSM.

I get where you’re coming from. I think honesty can be seductive; in politics, you can always count upon it as the element of surprise. But I begin my train of thought from the premise that, when confronted with non-republican debaters (namely Obama) his lack of genuine concern and his pursuit of political power will show throughout, especially since his talking points coincide too much with the ones of too easily vilified pressure groups. Or at least, that is the way it will be framed and it is comfortably doable. Thus is there much hope for this strategy to pan out in the long term? It would be better to display constant intellectual confidence and wit; the current campaign lacks the display of statesmanship from the more visible candidates after all.

As to his eventual comment on Libya, hmm, I disagree. He asserts that he does not agree with Obama insofar he would have made sure he evaluated the Libyan opposition very carefully, and then ends up by saying he doesn’t actually know the depth of the governments’ analysis on the matter. To translate, “He is my opponent so I’ll say he mishandled it at least partially, but I don’t really know what I’m talking about.” Doesn't come through at all.

Well nobody can see into man's heart, so all we can do is disagree on whether his pursuit of political power is the same as other politicians'. At least I can say that there's no lack of intellectual confidence on his part (which seems to bother/amuse his detractors), and I don't mind saying I'm satisfied with his wit as well. In regards to his comments, I don't think anyone can know exactly what the government's analysis was unless they were "in the room" so to speak. So they're be no way for him to know the depth of the government's analysis. And given all the Al-Queda flags flying in Libya now, I'd say Cain's right on the money.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-23-2011, 00:24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hj7hVEenjY0

I guess this goes here...

Lemur

11-23-2011, 19:51

Not sure what to make of Michelle Bachmann, the comic book (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=preview&id=10559).

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bachmann.jpg

Double A

11-24-2011, 00:33

Go Ron Paul!

Yay!

:mellow:

Because the President, also known as the chief diplomat of the entire country, isn't supposed to know anything about other nations.

I'm beaming with confidence for my nation's future after this revelation.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-24-2011, 01:54

Hmm, just watched the latest Republican debate. Based solely on that, my impression:

1. Gingrich
4. Huntsman
5. Santorum
99. Perry/Bachmann/Romney/Cain/Paul

What's your ranking?

PanzerJaeger

11-24-2011, 04:53

Hmm, just watched the latest Republican debate. Based solely on that, my impression:

1. Gingrich
4. Huntsman
5. Santorum
99. Perry/Bachmann/Romney/Cain/Paul

What's your ranking?

Missed it. That certainly wouldn't be my ranking based on the candidate's broader records and positions. Gingrich must have impressed. What did you like about his performance?

Sasaki Kojiro

11-24-2011, 05:53

Missed it. That certainly wouldn't be my ranking based on the candidate's broader records and positions. Gingrich must have impressed. What did you like about his performance?

Well...

Cain just says he'll ask the experts, Paul is sincerely an extreme ideologue, Bachmann just tries to say everything tougher than everyone else, Romney is a jackass who would sound as dumb as Perry if he wasn't well coached...

Santorum seems reasonably intelligent but I find him off putting for some reason. I think Huntsman is smart even if his campaign message is kind of weird.

Gingrich meets the standard for what you'd expect every candidate to be: able to talk articulately and sensibly about politics like he has his own ideas and beliefs rather than coached talking points. That's why Santorum and Huntsman get some credit too, compared to the other 5.

Debates are more about a personal judgement than looking at positions in detail though...

PanzerJaeger

11-24-2011, 20:14

Wow, I'm shocked that you guys see Gingrich as genuine. That would be the last word I would use to describe him. I guess that is why he is resonating.

In my opinion, the most genuine of the candidates (ie - those who have adopted positions most closely associated with those that they actually believe) would be: Paul, Huntsman, Santorum(too bad those beliefs are so awful), and, distantly, Romney. I know the inclusion of Romney sounds off, but his big flip flops have generally involved those thorny wedge issues that excite the plebs but that no politician really cares about anyway. I think he's been pretty solid on his old school Northeastern business oriented Republicanism. The others just seem completely beholden to whatever the Tea Party thought leaders currently advocate. Michelle Bachmann's transformation from a moderately conservative House member from Minnesota into a Tea Party crusader is quite remarkable, for example.

Lemur

11-29-2011, 16:45

Well I figure this is it (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/ginger-white-claims-affair-herman-cain-20111127-es) for the Herminator. Although I personally feel that a consensual affair is a very different beast from sexually harassing job-seekers and/or employees; what grown-ups do in their private time is none of our business. Abuse of power, on the other hand, is relevant and problematic.

But my reasoning doesn't matter in this context. I do not believe the Repub base will continue to support a candidate with so many sexual allegations floating around, and a well-documented years-long affair kinda nails down the coffin.

She showed us some of her cell phone bills that included 61 phone calls or text messages to or from a number starting with 678. She says it is Herman Cain's private cell phone. The calls were made during four different months-- calls or texts made as early as 4:26 in the early morning, and as late as 7:52 at night. The latest were in September of this year.

“We've never worked together,” said White. “And I can't imagine someone phoning or texting me for the last two and a half years, just because.”

We texted the number and Herman Cain called us back. He told us he "knew Ginger White" but said these are "more false allegations." He said she had his number because he was "trying to help her financially.”

Sasaki Kojiro

11-29-2011, 18:24

Why describe cheating on his wife as "what grown-ups do in their private time"? :dizzy2:

Lemur

11-29-2011, 19:41

Why describe cheating on his wife as "what grown-ups do in their private time"?
Consensual sex, even adultery, is not my business. Nor is it yours. Think about it.

Non-consensual stuff, on the other hand, is very much our business.

-edit-

Cain is "reassessing campaign (http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/11/29/herman-cain-to-staff-were-reassessing-campaign-but-plowing-on-for-now/)." Draw your own conclusions.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-29-2011, 21:50

Consensual sex, even adultery, is not my business. Nor is it yours. Think about it.

Non-consensual stuff, on the other hand, is very much our business.

I don't see why I shouldn't be concerned that someone is adulterous. It has some relevance to the office of president.

Lemur

11-29-2011, 21:59

Meh, we've had plenty of adulterers who made okay presidents, and at least one homosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) who did ... okay, he did a terrible job. But I doubt his "permanent bachelor" status had anything to do with it.

I guess I draw a line at consenting adults doing what they do. I don't really want to see every affair investigated. If a candidate broke the law or abused position, then I want to know. But so the Herminator had a little something-something on the side for 13 years, so what?

Sasaki Kojiro

11-29-2011, 22:05

Ok. I agree with the general point. But we've probably had okay presidents who sexually harassed people too :shrug:

I think willingness to lie to someone he's supposed to care about for 13 years is worrisome...honesty is sometimes needed from the president. It's also a red flag that he even ran for president with this kind of history, poor judgement. Heck this is all moot anyway since watching him debate is all anyone needed.

"Consenting" is too minimal a standard and I think it's weird that people rely on it so much. Well, they are already trying to stretch it too include more things at least. But this is off topic. edit: for example, you call it a "consensual affair". But there is no such thing as a non-consensual affair--consensuality is required for the word "affair" to apply. So it is part of the weird way we use the word "consensual" currently that we would even put it before the word affair.

Ronin

11-29-2011, 23:22

I don't see why I shouldn't be concerned that someone is adulterous. It has some relevance to the office of president.

it's your president, not your husband.
this is the same deal with Clinton, this might be a concern for his wife..no one else.

Lemur

11-29-2011, 23:51

"Consenting" is too minimal a standard and I think it's weird that people rely on it so much.
Don't know why you think it's so odd; as a minimal standard it does a good job. Lack of consent is pretty universally agreed to be bad. Admittedly, two consenting adults can still go horribly wrong (a case in Oregon involving a couple and a horse corpse (http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/11/jasha_lottin_portland_nudist_b.php) comes to mind), but consent is a reasonable and broadly agreed-upon starting point.

A presidential candidate who engages in consensual sex is pretty much off my radar. A candidate who forces him or herself on others has issues too large and too ugly to ignore. Doesn't strike me as a completely nonsensical construction.

a completely inoffensive name

11-30-2011, 00:54

When Cain drops out, Romney, Gingrich and Perry will pick up the support. Depending on whether Bachmann or Santorum drops first, the other will pick up those votes with some maybe going to Perry. Huntsman, Johnson and the other minor but reasonable candidates probably won't last past January. Those supporters will probably flock to Ron Paul, Romney or Gingrich. Ron Paul will be Ron Paul.

I expect the race to whittle down to Romney, Gingrich and Perry by Super Tuesday (March 6th). At that point, I don't know what will happen.

Sasaki Kojiro

11-30-2011, 05:23

It's just weird. Lying and not being faithful are bad, and plainly problematic for a presidential candidate. Adding "consensual" as today's go-to "make it sound like there's nothing wrong with it" word doesn't change that. I wouldn't mind it as the minimal standard if people didn't act like it was the standard, period. That may work well politically for helping get gay marriage legalized but it's wrong.

I mean, it's not like I'm arguing that it's "case closed" based on an affair, but it's absurd to argue it isn't relevant.

PanzerJaeger

11-30-2011, 07:53

How do you know he lied to his wife? We do not know what goes on in other people's marriages. There is the ideal, and then there is reality. People get married and stay married for many different reasons beyond being in love and wanting to have sex with only each other for the rest of their lives. That's why Clinton made it through his many scandals - people just kind of assumed Hillary knew he liked the ladies and was fine with it.

econ21

11-30-2011, 10:19

Wow, I'm shocked that you guys see Gingrich as genuine. That would be the last word I would use to describe him.

Not that people picking the GOP nominee will care, but Maureen Dowd's OP piece on Gingrich in the NYT today is a good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

PanzerJaeger

11-30-2011, 20:45

Not that people picking the GOP nominee will care, but Maureen Dowd's OP piece on Gingrich in the NYT today is a good read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/opinion/my-man-newt.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha212

I cannot stand her writing style. Andrew Ferguson's piece from a couple of months ago was pretty good, though. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/magazine/what-does-newt-gingrich-know.html?pagewanted=all

Lemur

12-01-2011, 22:38

Ramussen, which everyone agrees does the best polling of the Republican base, gives Gingrich a 21-point lead over Romney nationally (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/election_2012_republican_presidential_primary). That is huge.

Ronin

12-03-2011, 21:04

So Cain is out....it's a sad day for late night tv comedy writers.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-03-2011, 22:11

That "wierd way" you're talking about is the not-so-subtle reminder that things are changing, and that because an affair is consentual it is really not anyone else's business. The whole institution of marriage is suspect anyway.

A marriage is just a nooky-licence, or more acurately a "nooky-then-baby" licence. I'll happily go with "two consenting adults" but the two "consenting" adults in an affair are actually the couple, not the cheater and their bit on the side. If you can stand up in front of all your friends and family, promise to be faithful to this one person and then cheat on them, well then you're not good for much else.

I certainly wouldn't go boar hunting with you.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-04-2011, 02:58

Oh, no. I agree. Adultuery is a serious character deficiency, but it's not news-worthy (at least, not worth the air-time it gets). I can think of a hundred different reasons to NOT vote for Herman Cain besides "He's an adulterer."

Yeah, he's a sex pest.

a completely inoffensive name

12-04-2011, 09:55

Well looks like Gingrich is the top dog for now. After Jan 3rd, the pool should start to narrow some more.

CrossLOPER

12-04-2011, 16:15

Yeah, he's a sex pest.
You do realize that most adults engage in sexual activity?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-04-2011, 16:59

You do realize that most adults engage in sexual activity?

Look up "sex pest".

Lemur

12-04-2011, 17:42

I expect T-Paw (http://www.timpawlenty.com/bio) and his confidantes are collectively kicking themselves. If only they had known how fluid this race would be ...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-04-2011, 18:14

I expect T-Paw (http://www.timpawlenty.com/bio) and his confidantes are collectively kicking themselves. If only they had known how fluid this race would be ...

Yes, the two people who beat him are now toast.

Rommey will win it in the end though. Actually, he would have been better off just adopting a less socially conservative position and a solidly conservative fiscal one - he'd be more liekly to beat Obama then.

Lemur

12-05-2011, 04:17

Ladies and gents, I give you Women for Herman Cain (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc).

I am ironied out of all possible snarkiness.

Tellos Athenaios

12-05-2011, 10:04

Ladies and gents, I give you Women for Herman Cain (http://www.hermancain.com/wfhc).

I am ironied out of all possible snarkiness.

Though you got to admit that the piece by Debbie Stevens-Paulsen from Oklahoma looks just great on the front page.

Lemur

12-05-2011, 16:03

Pretty good ad today from Newt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brdrjLavTzU

drone

12-05-2011, 16:51

Pretty good ad today from Newt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brdrjLavTzU
American flag waving gently in the breeze? Check!
Purple mountains majesty? Check!
Steel mill workers? Check!
Hot (but wholesome) blond? Check!
Military? Check!
Statue of Liberty? Check!
Rural scene with steepled church? Check!
High powered business? Check!
Cowboys? Check!
Wait, wha? - is that Maximus Decimus Meridius at 0:41? :inquisitive:

Ronin

12-05-2011, 17:04

American flag waving gently in the breeze? Check!
Purple mountains majesty? Check!
Steel mill workers? Check!
Hot (but wholesome) blond? Check!
Military? Check!
Statue of Liberty? Check!
Rural scene with steepled church? Check!
High powered business? Check!
Cowboys? Check!
Wait, wha? - is that Maximus Decimus Meridius at 0:41? :inquisitive:

ROMA VICTOR!!!! :P

Lemur

12-05-2011, 18:54

Okay, sure, Newt's ad is transparently hokey, but it is positive. Don't have any data to back it up, but it seems to me that in the general election the dude with the more positive message/vibe usually wins. So I think an upbeat (if chronically hokey) ad from Newt is a smart thing.

a completely inoffensive name

12-05-2011, 22:04

Doesn't matter because at this rate, Obama has got the election locked up anyway. The only importance about the Republican Primaries is that whoever gets chosen will disappear from the public spotlight forever as being the person who lost to Obama.

Newt is too much of an insider and has so many flaws that will be exposed in the general election.
Perry is ....perry and won't win over the majority.
Romney, despite being genuinely in love with one woman who he has been loyal to all his life, still will not be able to win over the mainstream evangelicals over 3 time married, infidelity stricken Gingrich because his church is a "cult".

To be honest, Cain had the best chance at winning imo but now hes done for.

Crazed Rabbit

12-06-2011, 04:25

Newt is a scourge; (http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/01/appalling-moments-in-newtspeak#commentcontainer)
He's against free speech, freedom of religion, civil rights, due process, whenever the issue involves 'National Security' or Islam. He's also moronic on drug policy. Plus he supports ethanol subsidiaries.

CR

Nowake

12-06-2011, 10:40

Is Ron Paul's campaign striving to be left in second place, yet completely alone, with Romney, and then to attempt to eviscerate him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idV12epKanY

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-06-2011, 11:32

A bit dramatic, but certainly comprehensive.

Still, Newt gets a cookie for saying that "Right wing social engineering is no more desirable than left wing social engineering."

Then you take the cookie away for his trying to Impeach Clinton whilst having an affair.

CountArach

12-06-2011, 14:43

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-06-2011, 15:03

And then I give him another one for his wonderful jowels, which is subsequently taken away again because he's clearly some kind douche-bag anyway. I tire of turkey-man! Enough with the pretenders. Let's narrow it down to Romney and Paul, c'mon!

Fixed it for you.

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 06:09

Doesn't matter because at this rate, Obama has got the election locked up anyway.

What is so pathetic is that he does not have it locked up at all. He is, by far, the weakest incumbent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/Obama-November-Approval-Weak-Historical-Perspective.aspx) since Carter at this stage of his presidency. Practically any one of a large number of successful, serious GOP governors could give him a run for his money. The only thing standing in their way is the GOP itself.

I expected this race to be one of the most serious in recent history, considering the state of the nation. I was excited at the prospect of Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and several others contrasting their records with each other and that of the president. This was supposed to be an election over big issues and serious solutions. Instead it has devolved into absurdity. Most of the governors read the Tea Party writing on the wall and did not even bother. Those that did were instantly marginalized for not being angry enough (TPaw) or ideologically pure (Huntsman). Only Romney's money has kept him relevant, and to stay alive he has had to make some ridiculous and completely disingenuous attacks on the children of illegal immigrants.

Instead we have moved from one joke to the next, and I am starting to believe that is part of the plan. I think a lot of people in the new conservative media are quite happy to have Obama exactly where he is. He draws viewers to Fox News, clicks to Drudge and RedState, listeners to Rush, and money to a lot of people's PACs. Shysters have been lining their pockets for four years by tapping into the very real disappointment and anger over Obama and his policies. Why stop now?

These people are not only a problem for the GOP, but for the country as a whole. Even if voters eventually go for Obama next November, they deserve to have the option of a serious, contrasting slate of policies - even if it is of the somewhat limited American nature. Drumming serious candidates out in the primaries in favor of a bunch of bellicose, intellectually empty circus clowns does a serious disservice to all Americans.

The fact that Newt Gingrich has been pulled off of that couch he was making out with Nancy Pelosi on and is now being held up as the true conservative choice this primary season is simply vomit inducing.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 06:36

What is so pathetic is that he does not have it locked up at all. He is, by far, the weakest incumbent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/Obama-November-Approval-Weak-Historical-Perspective.aspx) since Carter at this stage of his presidency. Practically any one of a large number of successful, serious GOP governors could give him a run for his money. The only thing standing in their way is the GOP itself.

I expected this race to be one of the most serious in recent history, considering the state of the nation. I was excited at the prospect of Mitch Daniels, John Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, and several others contrasting their records with each other and that of the president. This was supposed to be an election over big issues and serious solutions. Instead it has devolved into absurdity. Most of the governors read the Tea Party writing on the wall and did not even bother. Those that did were instantly marginalized for not being angry enough (TPaw) or ideologically pure (Huntsman). Only Romney's money has kept him relevant, and to stay alive he has had to make some ridiculous and completely disingenuous statements on the children of illegal immigrants.

Instead we have moved from one joke to the next, and I am starting to believe that is part of the plan. I think a lot of people in the new conservative media are quite happy to have Obama exactly where he is. He draws viewers to Fox News, clicks to Drudge and RedState, listeners to Rush, and money to a lot of people's PACs. Shysters have been lining their pockets for four years by tapping into the very real disappointment and anger over Obama and his policies. Why stop now?

These people are not only a problem for the GOP, but for the country as a whole. Even if voters eventually go for Obama next November, they deserve to have the option of a serious, contrasting slate of policies - even if it is of the somewhat limited American nature. Drumming serious candidates out in the primaries in favor of a bunch of bellicose, intellectually empty circus clowns does a serious disservice to all Americans.

The fact that Newt Gingrich has been pulled off of that couch he was making out with Nancy Pelosi on and is now being held up as the true conservative choice this primary season is simply vomit inducing.

You mean to say, that when people make money off of politics, things go terribly awry?

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 06:53

You mean to say, that when people make money off of politics, things go terribly awry?

Eh, people have always made money off of politics. What I am describing is a rather unique situation in which the thought leaders of the opposition stand to make more money if they stay in the opposition. That leads to a fundamental perversion of the system.

Nowake

12-07-2011, 07:53

My apologies as this is completely off-topic, yet PJ's remark on fundamental perversions of the system reminded me of this DailyShow clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-december-5-2011/california-s-direct-democracy-troubles) on California's citizen Initiatives I saw yesterday - thought to share.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 08:05

Eh, people have always made money off of politics. What I am describing is a rather unique situation in which the thought leaders of the opposition stand to make more money if they stay in the opposition. That leads to a fundamental perversion of the system.

Money has always perverted the system. Our politicians at this point are almost not even chosen by the people anymore, but dictated by the size of their pocket book and creativity of commercials.

But now that it has been taken to its logical conclusion, you cry wolf.

PanzerJaeger

12-07-2011, 08:16

Money has always perverted the system. Our politicians at this point are almost not even chosen by the people anymore, but dictated by the size of their pocket book and creativity of commercials.

But now that it has been taken to its logical conclusion, you cry wolf.

I do not think 'cry wolf' is the term you were looking for.

Also, I agree that money does have a negative effect on politics. I also believe in freedom of speech, and it is often difficult to reconcile the two. That was not the point I was making with the above post, though.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 08:42

I do not think 'cry wolf' is the term you were looking for.

Also, I agree that money does have a negative effect on politics. I also believe in freedom of speech, and it is often difficult to reconcile the two. That was not the point I was making with the above post, though.

It was the term I was looking for, because I didn't think you were actually serious about the problem of money in politics. If this was happening to the Democratic Party, I would venture to guess that you wouldn't have made the same post. But maybe I am wrong.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 08:55

But it is happening to the Democratic party. Obama has been unable to fulfill many of his campaign promises as much due to the Democrats as the Republicans.

Then again, Clinton didn't free Peltier either.

PJ was talking about conservative leaders actively sabotaging the party from winning in order to make money by fear mongering its supporters when a Democrat is in the white house. I don't think the same is happening on the Democrat's side...

Also define "many of his campaign promises" considering he has kept about 3 times more promises than he has broken.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 08:58

Well, every promise he made to Native American voters, for one. Peltier is still in jail, and no treaties have been re-visited.

So that means that he deserves a connotation of a "do nothing" president despite the evidence saying otherwise?

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 09:20

Where did I ever say he was a do-nothing? I only said that he has been hamstrung by his own party. Would you deny that?

Yes. When he wanted health care reform passed, his party followed. When he wanted credit card reform, his party followed. Anything he may have been blocked on probably falls under two categories:

A. A planned rebellion that allows incumbent Dems in redder areas to tout how they stood against Obama on x,y,z issues.
B. Something relatively minor that doesn't really deserve to mentioned.

If his party was holding him back, he really would be a do nothing president.

a completely inoffensive name

12-07-2011, 09:34

It seems like you're just arguing to argue.

That's pretty much who I am in the backroom.

Lemur

12-07-2011, 15:05

[Obama] is, by far, the weakest incumbent (http://www.gallup.com/poll/151106/Obama-November-Approval-Weak-Historical-Perspective.aspx) since Carter at this stage of his presidency. Practically any one of a large number of successful, serious GOP governors could give him a run for his money. The only thing standing in their way is the GOP itself.
Indeed, given the weakness of the economic recovery, it should currently be impossible for an incumbent president to win re-election. But as you say, with the current crop of Repub candidates ... if I were putting my own money down, I'd bet on Obama at this point. Which is shocking. And a month or two ago I would not have made that bet.

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 16:59

Look up "sex pest".
You English speakers and your slang.

I guess you meant harassment. Then yeah, I guess he is.

Nowake

12-08-2011, 21:18

Mr. Newt Gingrich's

https://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2299/gingrichaccommodations.jpg (https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/822/gingrichaccommodations.jpg/)

Two bathrooms for his one-bedroom suite, ooh la la...
Presumably, he is just that full of shit.

EDIT: Apologies, here you have the original document (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/newt-gingrich-contract-875312#lightbox-popup-1).

CrossLOPER

12-08-2011, 23:01

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxzONeK1OwQ&feature=related
Uh. He does know that this will obliterate what is left of his campaign and probably screw up his career, right?

drone

12-09-2011, 01:04

Love the Carhartt jacket though, nice touch!

Lemur

12-09-2011, 01:17

Many parodies of that ad are already popping up all over. And yes, he's wearing the Brokeback Mountain jacket, we all know. For some reason this one is my fave:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF7KCjg_vBM

Centurion1

12-09-2011, 06:35

yes lol

Centurion1

12-09-2011, 08:10

different types of spending which don't really affect the common american like high levels of defense spending. because he wasnt spending any money on social programs the quote does hold some truth. But yes it is ironic.

Everyone knows the republican party loathes Keynesian economics unless its defense spending then its genius.

i dont disagree but it is ironic. As a future (god willing hopefully) army officer I don't relish the thought of going into a peace time army. This may seem bizarre and it is in some ways but ive already seen the cuts take effect in rotc and have heard the absolute nightmare stories from my father from what it was like in the 90's during clinton. I dread the thought of entering that while being happy less of our men and women will be in harms way on foreign soil.

Lemur

12-11-2011, 17:22

Anybody catch last night's debate?

Cecil XIX

12-11-2011, 21:34

Gingrich looked unstoppable, in my estimation. It felt like they spent half the debate going him, and he generally came off as looking stronger and more conservative after each attack. The highlight I felt was when Romney tried to go after him for his Palestinian comments by calling him a 'bombthrower', which Gingrich countered by calling Romney timid and reminding him that Reagan was criticized the same way for his 'Evil Empire' comment and for the "Tear down this wall." portion of his Berlin speech. I believe Gingrich was the only candidate to cite Reagan as model like that, which certainly helps make him look conservative. Because he was able to weather the firestorm, he now looks more like the front runner than ever. Romney did nothing to helpself, at best. When asked about what he disagreed with Gingrich on, he paused for several seconds before answering that Gingrich wanted to drill for resources on moon (or Mars, can't remember) and that Gingrich wanted to help poor kids get jobs by reforming child labor laws. Romney's answer made me think that he was less conservative than Gingrich, and I bet I'm not alone.

I felt Bachmann did the best job of positioning herself as the third choice by repeatedly blasting "Newt-Romney" for their conservative positions in a single, comprehensive statement. She was also very vocal in courting Cain's supporters, even mentioning the 9-9-9 plan in the beginning and end. Perry was fine, and if he had performed like this in his first few debates he might not have sunk to the bottom tier like he has. He did an excellent job in criticizing Obama for allowing a drone to fall into the hands of Iran instead of retrieving it or destroying it, which as definitely his best moment of the night. But as it stands, neither he nor Santorum gave as good a reason for voters to consider them as Bachmann did.

Paul was his same consistent self. Not much to say.

Generally speaking, I would expect the candidates' strengths in the polls to remain the same relative to each other as they are now. But I think it's more likely for Romney to fall to third than rise to first as a result of this debate.

Cecil XIX

12-12-2011, 05:37

How can anyone who watched that debate come away with any thought besides "Ron Paul is the only one of these folks who isn't a liar, cheat, or moron."?

Easily!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-12-2011, 14:07

How can anyone who watched that debate come away with any thought besides "Ron Paul is the only one of these folks who isn't a liar, cheat, or moron."?

With extreme prejudice, of which Republicans have an overabundence.

Centurion1

12-12-2011, 22:23

ron paul is an ignorant buffon

a completely inoffensive name

12-14-2011, 23:51

ron paul is an ignorant buffon

DON'T YOU DARE SLANDER DOCTOR PAUL LIKE THAT.

Lemur

12-15-2011, 00:25

ron paul is an ignorant buffon
He just got an endorsement (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/ron-paul-for-the-gop-nomination.html) from one of my favorite old-school conservatives:

I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans. [...]

The constant refrain on Fox News that this man has "zero chance" of being the nominee is a propagandistic lie. Nationally, Paul is third in the polls at 9.7 percent. In Iowa, he may win. In New Hampshire, it is Paul, not Gingrich, who is rising this week as Romney drifts down. He's at 19 percent, compared with Gingrich's 24. He is the third option for the GOP. And I believe an Obama-Paul campaign would do us all a service. We would have a principled advocate for a radically reduced role for government, and a principled advocate for a more activist role. If Republicans want a real debate about government and its role, they have no better spokesman. He is the intellectual of the field, not Gingrich.

I am, like many others these days, politically homeless. A moderate, restrained limited government conservatism that seeks to amend, not to revolt, to reform, not to revolutionize, is unavailable. [...]

I regard this primary campaign as the beginning of a process to save conservatism from itself. In this difficult endeavor, Paul has kept his cool, his good will, his charm, his honesty and his passion. His scorn is for ideas, not people, but he knows how to play legitimate political hardball. Look at his ads - the best of the season so far. His worldview is too extreme for my tastes, but it is more honestly achieved than most of his competitors, and joined to a temperament that has worn well as time has gone by.

I feel the same way about him on the right in 2012 as I did about Obama in 2008. Both were regarded as having zero chance of being elected. And around now, people decided: Why not? And a movement was born. He is the "Change You Can Believe In" on the right. If you are an Independent and can vote in a GOP primary, vote Paul. If you are a Republican concerned about the degeneracy of the GOP, vote Paul. If you are a citizen who wants more decency and honesty in our politics, vote Paul. If you want someone in the White House who has spent decades in Washington and never been corrupted, vote Paul.

Centurion1

12-15-2011, 19:39

The man is an imbecile and is trying to deal with issues his simplistic dogma has no place being near. his foreign policy is absurd and his economics...... dear god his economics make me foam at the mouth the man doesnt have any idea how to even define the word economics.

Crazed Rabbit

12-16-2011, 08:11

Ron Paul is the only sane man in the top and second group of candidates (Newt, Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum).

Of course, even if he wins caucuses they "won't count" (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/15/chris-wallace-iowa-wont-count-if-ron-paul-wins/).

Fox News host Chris Wallace doesn’t want Republicans to go wasting their votes on Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign.

Wallace, who is moderating a Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, told Fox News’s Neil Cavuto on Wednesday that a Paul win would “discredit” the Iowa caucuses.

“The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this,” Wallace began. “But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.”

“So therefore, Iowa won’t count,” he added. “It would certainly be a knock to Gingrich because, you know, right now he was the frontrunner — or a week ago he was the big frontrunner in this state so it would be missed opportunity for him.”

Good grief I hate that echo chamber of morons that is the 'establishment' of Republicans. WHO THE ()#&%()#*%*_)#*% CARES WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT THINKS?

Gah. Sorry.

CR

Tellos Athenaios

12-16-2011, 10:21

Good grief I hate that echo chamber of morons that is the 'establishment' of Republicans. WHO THE ()#&%()#*%*_)#*% CARES WHAT THE ESTABLISHMENT THINKS?

Gah. Sorry.

CR

Except of course if “the establishment” is who get to decide? Remember that even if Paul runs for Prez, in the USA you only elect people who elect presidents, you don't actually elect presidents...

a completely inoffensive name

12-16-2011, 10:47

Except of course if “the establishment” is who get to decide? Remember that even if Paul runs for Prez, in the USA you only elect people who elect presidents, you don't actually elect presidents...

That's tricky. The Electoral College is more or less a joke. If the Electorates sabotaged Ron Paul and didn't vote for him even if the state swung in his favor, the public would start rioting.

a completely inoffensive name

12-16-2011, 11:26

That's quite an assumption. Many modern congressmen and senators have voted differently than their constituents.

But people are not watching tv all day waiting to see how bills turn out. They do sit in front of the tv and wait to see which states go red and blue. When a state runs red and the electorates refuse to vote according to the public's wishes, you can bet the tea party and the ron paul libertarians will out in full swing raising hell.

At this point the presidential election has voters operating under the pretense it is a direct democracy kind of vote with silly tradition coverings.

CountArach

12-16-2011, 11:57

That's quite an assumption. Many modern congressmen and senators have voted differently than their constituents.
The people chosen for the electoral college are legaly bound, in most states, to vote with the state. At the very least they are usually from the same party as the person who won the state so unlikely to be 'faithless'.

Subotan

12-16-2011, 11:58

I've been saying for years we need to scrap the two parties, and move on to something more functional. Everyone always calls me crazy just for mentioning it.

Taboos aren't good.

Duverger's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law)means this is essentially impossible.

In political science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science), Duverger's law is a principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_%28principle%29) which asserts that a plurality rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system) election system tends to favor a two-party system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system).

Lemur

12-16-2011, 17:01

Body blow!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nexTB_Rmv7o

ajaxfetish

12-18-2011, 21:31

Paul just finds so many opportunities to remind me why he's awesome.

Leno: "Who's your favorite president?"
Paul: "Grover Cleveland."

One nominee after another, treating the campaign as a popularity contest, jumps on the Reagan bandwagon at every opportunity. Paul has his own opinions, and isn't afraid of them. I have no idea what Cleveland did as president, or whether he's at all worthy of emulation, but the simple fact that we have a presidential candidate principled enough to say what he really thinks, with no thought for what people want to hear, makes me smile.

Ajax

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-18-2011, 22:15

You know, this makes great theatre over here.

I appreciate why Paul looks so good, but it's only because Rommey has shifted his stance half way to crazy town and every other decent Republican has sat this one out in the hopes that two lost elections will allow the Bush Effect to dissipate and for Fox to moderate it's news coverage before they all die of old age.

On two basic points Paul is totally unelectable.

1. Foriegn policy: Paul is not just non-interventionist, he's isolationist and that is bad for the US with it's global trade interests and for the Western Allies the US has led since the 1950's.

2. Economic Policy: An attempt to return to the Gold Standard would kill the US treasury, dead. The US dollar is now so devalued vs the 1930's that you'd have to buy so much gold, it just doesn't bear thinking about.

Which brings you back to the Blessing Obama.

Centurion1

12-18-2011, 22:36

Ronin

12-18-2011, 23:20

Please, please, please let Ron Paul get this nomination. Even if you don't agree with his policies, how is not apparent to everyone that he's the only reasonable, rational man running for the spot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMUZIVYuluc

Feel free to ignore the over-excite muscle-head at the end, if you want. He's a good guy who usually makes sense, but I think he's re-directing his roid-rage towards supporting Ron Paul.

This gives me mixed feelings, as I'm torn between being a fan of Ron Paul, and a hatred of Roid-Heads.

hey!
Joe Rogan is a pot head...not a roid head.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-19-2011, 00:08

anddddddddd theres your answer gc.

Which is not to say either position makes Paul stupid or crazy. While it is impossible for the US to return to the Gold Standard at present it is theoretically both possible and desirable to do so, especially in view of the high debts the government has run up in recent years. At the very least, if the US had high gold reserves bought at the low point in the gold cycle it could sell them at the high point (which is also the economic low point) and help aleviate its spending shortfall. As to isolationism, well the US is overcommitted abroad, the MIC has warped the US economy (and helped create those debts) while allowing European nations to demilitatise to what are now becoming positively dangerous levels.

40 odd years ago, for example, Britain ran four Carrier Battlegroups as a matter of course, as that meant we could always afford to have 25% of the fleet in dock, 25% for defence and 50% deployable.

Now? We have one essentially in mothballs, and the other two have been chucked.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-19-2011, 15:25

Just because we're entangled in all kinds of foreign messiness doesn't mean we need to stay there.

Actually, you do. You may not need to stay in Afganistan (you should) but you need to stay in Europe and South America, as well as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, for at least several more decades.

People don't get it.. Ron Paul won't have the power to take us back to the gold standard, or dismantle the EPA. That's not what presidents do. Instead, he'll have the power to make sure that no more Patriot Acts get passed. The power to Veto aid to foreign dictatorships. The power to bring the troops back for good. The power to avoid any more wars that haven't been legally declared.

No other candidates promise these things.

Paul has the power to be unpopular and antagonistic to the opposition, Obama has managed to snarl up congress to the extent that you can't pass a budget. Paul is an even more divisive figure.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-19-2011, 23:53

No, actually, we don't. I'm not an isolationist, but common sense says you need to look out for number one. When you're broke, you budget. When you budget, you cut things you don't need. Foregin entanglements is right at the top of that list, with over half a century of unprecedent, expensive, and complex foreign engagements. That was the result of the world, and the way it developed. A decision to pull back from the world a bit is no different, and would be a wise move made out of necessity. I think Europe will be just fine without us. You're all grown up.

Link it or not Uncle Sam is Big Pimp Daddy, and unless Big Pimp Daddy wants all his hookers to start working for that Russian Gangsta, or the Triad, he should protect them out on those mean streets by making sure his fully tooled up Hommies are their to protect his investment.

You feelin' me bro?

Obama tried to do some good things, in a bad way. But mostly, Bush was the problem. Bush's reign did more damage than any president in a long time, and what we need is to undo it, not to try and pass sweeping new changes. The only people who will get riled up at cutting the fat are the crooks, and the public does not abide the crooks as long as there are powerful people willing to be honest and call a spade a spade.

We need to re-evaluate a lot of stuff in this country, taking some of the really awful lessons we've had to learn in the last decade or so and actually try applying them in a rational and reasonable fashion. Something we can't ever do while congress is talking about gay marriage, or drug testing the unemployed, or whatever other pointless frakking crap makes the news. A serious attitude shift needs to happen, in the direction of rational discussion and transparency. Everyone on the list besides Ron Paul just seem like they came out of the same damned factory or something.

The number one lesson would have to be "don't elect a Republican just because the Democrat is boring, awkward and over-intellectual."

All the smart Republicans are sitting this one out, so should their voters.

a completely inoffensive name

12-20-2011, 09:57

Link it or not Uncle Sam is Big Pimp Daddy, and unless Big Pimp Daddy wants all his hookers to start working for that Russian Gangsta, or the Triad, he should protect them out on those mean streets by making sure his fully tooled up Hommies are their to protect his investment.

You feelin' me bro?

I see my level of discourse has finally spread to the more civilized members of the backroom. My job is done.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-20-2011, 11:49

You seem to have a very misguided view of global politics. How can you portray international relations in such a light and still fail to see that, maybe, not engaging in such activities might be a good idea? I'm not talking about closing off from the world or anything.. just a realistic cost-benefit analysis on our Allies and our overseas "Project Nations." An analysis not muddied by past convention.

It's pretty simple really, Europeans think more or less like Americans, in terms of how to run a government etc., Russians don't. Europeans therefore do not want to be run by Russia (or China) and the US does not want those countries running the world. Ergo, the US either steps up or Americans accept a power vacume which leads to greater suffering in Europe, and a world idctated by someone else's cultural norms. America has engaged in an active foriegn policy, including deliberately dismantling the British Empire and beheading the German Empire, for just these reasons.

Europeans tend to misunderstand American sentiment towards foreign countries, and I think I understand why. It is because most European nations are very, very old and have enemies, friends, legends and lore that are part of your very every-day culture on some level. Most Americans don't have any great feelings one way or the other about any nations outside our borders, unless they've done something newsworthy. Any why should we? Until very recently, as time goes, the rest of you had nothing we needed. At the same time, we thoughtlessly integrate cultures into our own without realizing it, and then go on to bitch about it later. Happens every few decades about one immigrant group or another. Heck, we even bring cultures back from wars. Blargh, I'm ranting.

America is a good four hundred years old now, if you have no history it's because you ignore it, not because it doesn't exist. Nor are most countries "very, very" old by comparison, with a few exceptions, like England, most modern European states are only a few hundred years old. People may have been living on the continent longer than that, but a lot of the history is appropriated based on geography, rather than actual ethnicity. Anyway, Americans import all this by identifying as WASPS (oxymoron), Irish-American, Italian-American etc., etc.

What I'm trying to say is that Americans, generally speaking, don't have any sentimental attachments to these alliances. In fact, most of problematic ones are a result of that whole "Imperialism in Self Defense" thing during the Cold War. You know, the whole assasinating people and dabbling in the drug trade, and propping up dictators thing. The fact that its still taboo to mention these things is ridiculous, by the way.

It is noted, the way Britain is treated, especially currently, is the prime example. The point is theough, the callous way America treats her long term allies is really bad politics, for one thing it makes America a recognisably unreliable ally and burns political capital on the world stage.

As I said, America is the Power at the head of the Western Allies, and it just has to be, otherwise the Alliance falls apart.

Ronin

12-20-2011, 13:24

America is a good four hundred years old now, if you have no history it's because you ignore it, not because it doesn't exist.

Actually 235 years....but I still agree with the rest of your sentence.
90% of a national culture has more to do with the last 100 years or so then how many other centuries lie behind that...

Lemur

12-20-2011, 16:28

Boiling debate in the blogosphere: Why does Romney lie so much, and so poorly?

Interesting take (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2011/12/15/why-does-romney-lie/): "For some reason, he even managed to say something untrue about his real first name during the national security debate last month. It’s tempting to say that he has reinvented himself so thoroughly that he can no longer remember what is true and what isn’t, and he has absorbed and appropriated so many new positions over the years that it all gets jumbled together and re-mixed according to whatever the political need of the moment happens to be. It’s easy to lose track after the fourth or fifth incarnation. More likely, he is so contemptuous of the people he tells these lies to that he never thinks he will be found out."

Personal favorite (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/the_rationale_behind_baldfaced034171.php):

Mitt Romney appeared on Fox News last night and boasted, “Our campaign hasn’t put up negative ads at this stage.” I know that’s not true. I’ve seen the ads.

Likewise, Romney said on Thursday night, “This is a president who fundamentally believes that the next century is the post-American century. Perhaps it will be the Chinese century. He is wrong.” I know that’s not true, either. Kevin Drum noted in response, “Seriously, where does he get this stuff? It’s just made up out of thin air. Obama’s never said this or anything even close to it.” [...]

[W]hen pressed, Romney and his aides have freely admitted, more than once, that niceties such as facts, evidence, and reason just aren’t that important (http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_12/indifference_to_the_truth033898.php) to them. Dishonest “propaganda” should simply be expected and accepted, they’ve said.

I’ve been watching national campaigns for quite a while, and I can’t think of any comparable major-party campaigns acting this way, especially this far from the election.But none of this goes very far toward answering why. Of course politicians lie. They're in the business of telling people what they want to hear, and secondarily in the business of governing. The two do not always overlap. So by all means, tell every voter you're going to give them a car Oprah-style, and then don't. I would expect nothing less.

But Romney seems to be in that strange category of bad liar, which tells me less about his personal honesty than his skill as a politician. I think Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton could lie circles around Romney, take a break for a snack, and then lie some more. And they wouldn't get busted. Romney would.

So if you're a bad liar, and you keep getting caught at it, why continue? Why not adjust tactics?

Major Robert Dump

12-20-2011, 17:09

The Iowas Republicans are already conspiring against Paul. I like where this is headed, as it just gives him more credibility. They are claiming a record number of democrat voters are switching parties in an effort to nominate the worst Republican. I want proof. God forbid someone change party, that never happens.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-20-2011, 17:18

Actually 235 years....but I still agree with the rest of your sentence.
90% of a national culture has more to do with the last 100 years or so then how many other centuries lie behind that...

American history doesn't begin with the Declaration of Independence any more than French history begins with the First Republic or English history ends in 1066. That sense of amnesia is one of the ploblems with American history, it's like the Pilgrim Fathers arrived on the Mayflour and then you had the Revolution, then nothing really happened until the Civil War. Most European countries beheaded several kings/presidents/princes in the intervening timeframe.

The Iowas Republicans are already conspiring against Paul. I like where this is headed, as it just gives him more credibility. They are claiming a record number of democrat voters are switching parties in an effort to nominate the worst Republican. I want proof. God forbid someone change party, that never happens.

That's just, wrong.

When you've reached the point where people joining your party makes you suspicious like that you've left crazy town and arrived in Insanity City.

Lemur

12-20-2011, 18:02

[A] record number of democrat voters are switching parties in an effort to nominate the worst Republican. I want proof. God forbid someone change party, that never happens.
From what little reporting I can find, sounds more like young people are registering Republican (http://iowacity.patch.com/articles/ron-paul-draws-a-crowd-in-cedar-falls) to vote Ron Paul.

That's not a conspiracy. That's democracy.

Ronin

12-20-2011, 18:13

Lemur

12-20-2011, 19:26

According to an aggregate of current polls (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/ia/iowa_republican_presidential_primary-1588.html), Ron Paul is ahead in Iowa. However, Ramussen, which is very good at measuring the Republican base, puts Romney ahead (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/iowa/iowa_romney_23_gingrich_20_paul_18).

Draw your own conclusions. When it comes to Republican polling, I tend to trust Ramussen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XESux7oFMDY

-edit-

You may also want to while away a few minutes playing Supervillain or Newt (http://supervillainornewt.com/)? I did horribly, less than 50% correct.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-21-2011, 00:29

Well, yeah. Although much less than 400 of that is US-history, technically.

While that's true, it's somewhat beside the point. Normandy isn't "French" history, Roman Britain isn't "English history" and the Vikings aren't exactly "Danish" history. As a Nation the US is older than Germany, Italy or Norway, if you apply such a narrow definition. Fact is, those English Colonists didn't rebel in a vacume, and contrary to the Declaration of Independance their situation was hardly worse than that of the various English counties during the period.

I agree with eveyrthing you've said. Even about the why we protect Europe. And I think those are pretty good reasons to continue protecting Europe, as long as we can afford to. Once again, I'm asking for a realistic Cost-Benefit annalysis, done at the highest level, and implemented according to the results. I don't think there would be a need to stop helping and supporting NATO, or Europe in general--but maybe they aren't worth it? It's worth investigating the dollar amounts, the lives lost, and whether or not you guys are really worth it.

The Obama administration has recently favoured Argentina over the British Government with regard to the Falkland Islands, the State Department even refers to it as "The Malivinas" now. Contrast that with the number of Argentine troops in Afganistan.

There are compelling reasons for the US to maintain it's historical alliences, even if other countries like Russia, China and South America, have things to offer the US that Europe doesn't.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-21-2011, 02:17

I do agree with that. Cost-Benefit has to include the moral imperitives--such as they are--that led to the founding of our own nation. Supporting dictatorships of any kind is unsound for reasons beyond morality, but morality should be enough usually.

Its Imperialism that bothers me, as its a tried and true road to hardship down the road. Having friends, on the other hand, is a good thing. Especially if they can pull their own weight, and you can trust the character of the government.

Right. In turn, I'm more than willing to admit that the US is in something of a bind because her European allies have enacted a continual military drawdown, beyond economic necessity, which has left the US holding the NATO baby. That's an issue, but the situation is unlikely to change this decade, and unfortunately the US has to stump up that cost, because it can, until sentiment in Europe allows a sensible rearmament.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-21-2011, 16:56

That's a very well-said case for continued European support. In turn, I believe we could afford that support if we took a harsh diplomatic stance towards dictatorships and imperialism. Instead of trying to make democracies, we should simply hold out our aid and/or conquest until they've developed on their own. We are very bad Kingmakers, and I think we should have learned this by now.

I think there are instances where it's a good idea to intervene, Libya, for example, has garnered the West new political capital in the Middle East for a (relatively) low cost in material, and no cost in manpower. Strategically, that's a good deal. Afganistan has the potential to be a good deal, but we aren't over the intial investment yet - it would take another 2 decades to turn a strategic profit, but it most certainly can be done, there just isn't the will. The same was true of Vietnam, btw, if the US had stayed another five years South Vietnam would probably have been ok, especially as the Tet Offensive was a pretty comprehensive strategic failure from a military point of view.

As to the US being a bad "Kingmaker", US diplomats and technocrats were unwilling for the Afgan King to retake his throne, or become president, and that's how we ended up with the current mess and Karzai into the deal. That's the same mistake made with Germany in 1918.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-21-2011, 19:04

Time is not the answer in war. Actually, Sun Tzu said the most relevant quote about it (which is sad, considering we teach Sun Tzu at West Point):

There's a longer one that goes on about a Generals who talk about "Oh, I'm gonna go on a big long campaign!" and how they're stupid for not trying to achieve a quick result. Can't seem to find that one, though.

I agree about Lybia. What we're doing there is WAY cheaper than Iraq and Afghanistan. I mean, orders and orders of magnitude. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have all shown the realities of trying to occupy a nation that is not internally stable in the first place. Vietnam, specifically, shows why you never go to war if you don't mean it. That war was won and lost in North Vietnam--where we never got serious, because we were afraid of Russia and China. Someone should have said "We can't risk war with Russia and China, and this is clearly not going to work out by attrition without decisiveness." Eventually they did, but it should not have taken nearly so long. In fact, the whole war should have been avoided, and a cleverer, cheaper, and more effective diplomatic solution should have been found.

Iraq may be a success. I saw a lot of good stuff over there. But only time will tell. Afghanistan, on the other hand, cannot be won without utterly and decisively taking the resources of Pakistan out of the fight. Vietnam should have told us that it will be necesarry--but I don't think anyone is paying attention.

Normally I'd bow to Sun Tzu, but in this case I dissagree - and the proof is in Ancient Rome, pacifying the British took about 50 years, and it would have taken another 50 to pacify Scotland. The point is, the Romans did it and it was possible because their military and logistics were so superior. America can't lose in Afganistan, only withdraw, same for Vietnam. That was a winnable war, especially after Tet, but the American mythology paints it as hopeless, in order to rationalise the withdrawal. That withdrawal had disastrous loong term consequences for the US and Vietnam, to boot.

Subotan

12-22-2011, 15:41

America can't lose in Afganistan, only withdraw, same for Vietnam. That was a winnable war, especially after Tet, but the American mythology paints it as hopeless, in order to rationalise the withdrawal. That withdrawal had disastrous loong term consequences for the US and Vietnam, to boot.

I don't want to derail this thread, and feel free to split this off mods, but I have to disagree. Militarily, winning in Vietnam was probably possible, but we'll never know. What matters is that the Americans lost had lost the struggle against the Vietnamese nationalist movement long, long before they got directly involved, long before Dien Bien Phu even. The Americans lost the war for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese quickly and decisively, and there was no way that America could ever commit enough resources to win a war against a nation without totally exhausting itself, as Sun Tzu said. It is exactly the same in Afghanistan - the war for hearts and minds has been lost, and there is no way that foreigners will ever be able to strengthen the Afghan state enough to be able to control its own Afghans.

The Romans in Britain were not fighting a nationalist movement, with clearly defined goals and the organisational capacity to fight a sustained and consistent campaign across the British Isles. It is the complete opposite of Vietnam, and it is the complete opposite of the War in Afghanistan.

rvg

12-22-2011, 16:18

...It is exactly the same in Afghanistan - the war for hearts and minds has been lost, and there is no way that foreigners will ever be able to strengthen the Afghan state enough to be able to control its own Afghans.
The Romans in Britain were not fighting a nationalist movement, with clearly defined goals and the organisational capacity to fight a sustained and consistent campaign across the British Isles. It is the complete opposite of Vietnam, and it is the complete opposite of the War in Afghanistan.

The war for the heart and mind of Hamid Karzai perhaps has indeed been lost. Pashtoos in general might hate our guts too, but I won't be so sure about the Tajiks, the Uzbeks or any other minorities that consitute about 58% of the total population. So, we can still salvage it by betting more on non-pashtoos. As for Karzai, he needs a big poster of Najibulla as a Christmas present. That should win his mind right back.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-22-2011, 17:56

The Romans in Britain were not fighting a nationalist movement, with clearly defined goals and the organisational capacity to fight a sustained and consistent campaign across the British Isles. It is the complete opposite of Vietnam, and it is the complete opposite of the War in Afghanistan.

Weren't they? They didn't slaughter the druids for fits and giggles. As to a pan-Vietnamese Nationalist movement, don't believe it. The Viet Cong were Communists, and particularly brutal ones, they mostly died in the Tet Offensive, which was a pretty shocking military failure, as the US and ARVN managed to clear them out in a matter of days.

Winning in Afganistan is actually quite simple. Buy the Opium, turn it into Morphine, sell the Morphine, use it to build roads, hospitals and schools.

Overall, people in the Urban centres already mostly support the ISAF, because the Taliban was worse, but in the rural areas the burning of cannabis and opium crops is impoverishing the farmers; the semi-nomadic tribesmen will support whoever is strongest and can bring peace and prosperity.

The problem is, a plan like this takes a couple of decades to implement and get up and running.

Tellos Athenaios

12-22-2011, 18:53

Would also imply/require an end to the war on drugs. People would just go back to Morphine addiction instead of Heroine.

So either war is lost. Or both are won depending on your point of view. ~;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-22-2011, 19:16

Would also imply/require an end to the war on drugs. People would just go back to Morphine addiction instead of Heroine.

So either war is lost. Or both are won depending on your point of view. ~;)

Not really, we produce morphine right now (how we get supplies of Opium is somewhat a vexed issue), we'd just be loosening the Opium trade in order to produce medical Morphine.

Tellos Athenaios

12-22-2011, 23:28

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-22-2011, 23:45

Nah, to get to the volumes that you need to pay for schools, infrastructure, etc. on a nation wide scale means that prices will drop (supply/demand on the open market). Currently a lot of that stuff is turned into heroine, which then won't be so it will get even more expensive.

Price point of morphine will decrease and availability will increase; exact opposite for heroine. Seems a recipe for some of that morphine to go “missing” and land on the gray/black market for drug addicts? (Btw, morphine is already used as a stop gap solution for heroine addicts to make it easier to kick the habit later.)

Well, from the point of view of the high Morphine and Heroin are much of muchness, Heroin is just a delivery compound for the morphine. Cut price morphine going missing might have the advantage, if the price was low enough, of being cut with less junk. If junkies are going to get a high it might as well be a (relatively) clean one. I'd still prosecute the dealers with righteous fury, of course.

Anglican righteous fury.

Subotan

12-23-2011, 13:46

The war for the heart and mind of Hamid Karzai perhaps has indeed been lost. Pashtoos in general might hate our guts too, but I won't be so sure about the Tajiks, the Uzbeks or any other minorities that consitute about 58% of the total population.
You're looking at the wrong number. It's 42% of the population that actively despise us, whilst the other 58% merely despises the people who despise us. You cannot build a stable state with that kind of inter-communal hostility, let alone a state imposed by outsiders.

Weren't they? They didn't slaughter the druids for fits and giggles. As to a pan-Vietnamese Nationalist movement, don't believe it. The Viet Cong were Communists, and particularly brutal ones, they mostly died in the Tet Offensive, which was a pretty shocking military failure, as the US and ARVN managed to clear them out in a matter of days.
Ho Chi Minh said that he was nationalist first and a Communist second, and this is reflected amongst the population who fought against the Americans. They weren't fighting the bourgeoisie, but a foreign force that was imposing its own demands and conditions upon the Vietnamese nation. Looking back in hindsight, many leaders of the American military establishment admitted that they overestimated the communist element of the Vietminh, and vastly under-recognised the nationalist elements of the movement. Exactly the same will come to pass with the Taliban - the Pashtun nationalist element of the Taliban has been ignored, at NATO's peril.

Winning in Afganistan is actually quite simple. Buy the Opium, turn it into Morphine, sell the Morphine, use it to build roads, hospitals and schools.

https://i.imgur.com/dSsv1.jpg

Who's saying we haven't won the hearts and minds? Are you freaking kidding me? We've won the hearts and minds of civilians almost everywhere we've gone. In Iraq, we were so nice to the civilians that if we accidentally knocked the mirror off their car while going through a narrow street with a humvee, we'd leave a card telling them who to call to get money for it. We do the same sort of thing in Afghanistan.
This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. The Afghans don't care that their mirrors are paid for by the foreigners, but that the mirrors are knocked off by foreign soldiers in the first place. It's not a question of financial compensation, but one of pride and national dignity.

For example, let's say Mexico occupied the Southern US, so as to help stem the tide of drugs and halt the violence associated with it. Even if they were really nice, and actually managed to lessen the violence somewhat, it would be absolutely unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans, even though such feelings would be irrational. It is exactly the same sentiment that is applicable in Afghanistan, only the West is failing to stop the violence.

We're not losing for lack of hearts and minds. It doesn't matter if the poeple love you--if you're not there to protect them from the Taliban, they will support them to save their own lives. We're losing because we haven't hit the enemy hard enough. Hell, we haven't even hit them where it hurts: The Pakistani Government
The Taliban are not genocidal maniacs, and the population is smart enough to know that if they don't actively support the ISAF that they will not be harmed by the Taliban in retaliation. Also, the battle for the love of the population is the most important battle of all. We can't stay in Afghanistan forever, and building a state that the Afghan people don't want to destroy is pretty much the only attainable objective for the West now (So long for those hopes of building a stable liberal democracy).

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2011, 15:17

You're looking at the wrong number. It's 42% of the population that actively despise us, whilst the other 58% merely despises the people who despise us. You cannot build a stable state with that kind of inter-communal hostility, let alone a state imposed by outsiders.

Those figures are variable depending on where you take your poll. Support is much higher in Urban areas, where people are not only educated, but the culture is much more Western. Afganistan is a country of contradictions, where the rural and Urban populations are profoundly different. Take a look at some photos of the Kingdom of Afganistan from the forties, their hospitals, their universities, their streetside cafes, and you should be able to appreciate why there are people there supportive of the ISAF.

Ho Chi Minh said that he was nationalist first and a Communist second, and this is reflected amongst the population who fought against the Americans. They weren't fighting the bourgeoisie, but a foreign force that was imposing its own demands and conditions upon the Vietnamese nation. Looking back in hindsight, many leaders of the American military establishment admitted that they overestimated the communist element of the Vietminh, and vastly under-recognised the nationalist elements of the movement. Exactly the same will come to pass with the Taliban - the Pashtun nationalist element of the Taliban has been ignored, at NATO's peril.

Ho Chin Minh also said, "the people are like little fish in a big river, they go with the current." If support for America in Afganistan has fallen so appallingly it has much more to do with rogue executions and support for corrupt politicians than any abstract Nationalism.

This is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. The Afghans don't care that their mirrors are paid for by the foreigners, but that the mirrors are knocked off by foreign soldiers in the first place. It's not a question of financial compensation, but one of pride and national dignity.

That's like saying of the Russian Revolution, "they don't care that they have to eat acorns and drink sewage, they're just offended by the existence of the Tsar!"

The Taliban are not genocidal maniacs, and the population is smart enough to know that if they don't actively support the ISAF that they will not be harmed by the Taliban in retaliation. Also, the battle for the love of the population is the most important battle of all. We can't stay in Afghanistan forever, and building a state that the Afghan people don't want to destroy is pretty much the only attainable objective for the West now (So long for those hopes of building a stable liberal democracy).

If you get caught stealing by the Americans you will be locked up, maybe beaten, if you are caught by the Taliban your hand will be cut off. The Taleban most certainly are maniacs, and they're genocidal in the sense that they want to stamp out any alternative to their scrict version of Islamic life.

Subotan

12-23-2011, 16:10

I think you are overstimating the ignorance of these people. Yes, they are nationalistic, but they are not stupid. Most Iraqi civilians understood that we were there only for awhile, and that soon we would leave. Most of the ones I talked to frequently were afraid that after we left, things would be worse. They hated the Insurgents, not the Americans. Some of the Interpreters I worked with were fiercely nationalistic young Iraqi men, who were educated, eloquent, and understood that we represented the best chance for their nation to come out prosperous from the conflict.

I fear for the Afghan equivalents of those men. The West has an obligation to those young men who will be the victims of terrible reprisals when the Taliban return to power. Unfortunately, as Western societies are racist, bigoted and ungrateful, those men and women will be kept out under the guise of either "Protecting jobs", them being "Bogus asylum seekers" or the incredible "Our country is full". They are the Harkis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harki#After_the_war) of our generation, and future generations will condemn us for abandoning them.

Afghanistan is not Iraq, unfortunately. The level of literacy is much, much lower. Ignorance is more of a factor. But if you're trying to tell me that the average Afghan civilian can't tell the difference between Soviet invaders and US rebuilding efforts, then I think you need to do some additional thinking on the subject.
The Afghan state the Soviets constructed actually functioned rather well, given that it was under attack by US supplied insurgents, until Soviet/Russian aid dried up. I would also argue that there is very little non-idelogical difference between the Soviet and ISAF efforts in Afghanistan.

Those figures are variable depending on where you take your poll. Support is much higher in Urban areas, where people are not only educated, but the culture is much more Western. Afganistan is a country of contradictions, where the rural and Urban populations are profoundly different. Take a look at some photos of the Kingdom of Afganistan from the forties, their hospitals, their universities, their streetside cafes, and you should be able to appreciate why there are people there supportive of the ISAF.
I'm very aware that there has always been a liberal, urban elite in Afghanistan. But an Afghan state needs to be able to control its rural population, and the current Afghan state cannot do that and will never be able to do that.

Ho Chin Minh also said, "the people are like little fish in a big river, they go with the current." If support for America in Afganistan has fallen so appallingly it has much more to do with rogue executions and support for corrupt politicians than any abstract Nationalism.
This is a very condescending view.

That's like saying of the Russian Revolution, "they don't care that they have to eat acorns and drink sewage, they're just offended by the existence of the Tsar!"
That's completely different, as the Tsar was a native tyrant, rather than a foreign one. Interestingly, hatred for his foreign wife was much more intense than it was for her, as she was seen to be a meddler interfering in Russian affairs, as it was for Marie Antoinette etc.

If you get caught stealing by the Americans you will be locked up, maybe beaten, if you are caught by the Taliban your hand will be cut off.
You're missing the big issue here. If a civilian goes to the Afghan police to report a theft, the police won't do anything. Under the Taliban, whoever was perceived to be guilty would get a hand cut off. This perception of justice being done gave the Taliban a legitimacy that the current ineffectual Afghan state does not possess. The Taliban brought order and justice to Afghanistan, and when you're a dirt farming Pashtun, that looks mighty more

The Taleban most certainly are maniacs, and they're genocidal in the sense that they want to stamp out any alternative to their scrict version of Islamic life.
Of course they're crazy, but that's not the definition of genocidal.

Tellos Athenaios

12-23-2011, 16:46

Since this is the 23rd I might as well go for it now.

The Taliban are not crazy. Their foot soldiers simply have a different interpretation of justice or Allah's will than we do. By the same token people in Europe once actually believed that it was of paramount importance to rape and pillage Germany wholesale because it was the end of days and therefore time to settle religious scores and impose dogma. By the same token some people today wage media campaigns to tell the USA that creationism should be taught at school, and gays are to be cured.

My point is that they act very rational. Also it is worth noting that comparisons with the Soviets are futile. For one thing the low life expectancy ensured that the people whom we deal with today are the ones who were a baby when the Soviets withdrew. It's the generation who are in their twenties now that will matter.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-23-2011, 17:37

This is a very condescending view.

Blame Ho Chin Minh, and every other political thinker, from Plato, to Machiavelli, to Churchill. People only fight when they have more to lose by not fighting, otherwise they keep their heads down - mostly to protect their families. Rushing headlong into any kind of war is immensely stupid, and it is something only done by the mad, bad or ideaologically driven. If

That's completely different, as the Tsar was a native tyrant, rather than a foreign one. Interestingly, hatred for his foreign wife was much more intense than it was for her, as she was seen to be a meddler interfering in Russian affairs, as it was for Marie Antoinette etc.

They rose up for the same reason as the Iranians, poor conditions - not ideaology

You're missing the big issue here. If a civilian goes to the Afghan police to report a theft, the police won't do anything. Under the Taliban, whoever was perceived to be guilty would get a hand cut off. This perception of justice being done gave the Taliban a legitimacy that the current ineffectual Afghan state does not possess. The Taliban brought order and justice to Afghanistan, and when you're a dirt farming Pashtun, that looks mighty more

Witch hunts gave the Taleban legitimacy? No, I think you'll find they cowed the population. Afganistan was in a State of War before the Coalition invaded, and the Taleban were roundly hated. I expect most Pashtuns would rather the Tribal Elders dealt with things, rather than the Taleban.

Of course they're crazy, but that's not the definition of genocidal.

No? Genocide can mean the extinction of a culture, rather than the physical people.

Major Robert Dump

12-23-2011, 17:43

The anti-american sentiment is going to be primarily amonsgt the kuchi nomads, the rural areas with no development, and universities. the sentiment in universities is surprisingly high considering NATO money is paying for the books, the electricty and the new facilites. The sentiment is also an entitlement sentiment, and has a lot to do with one person benefitting and while another gets nothing. This is a common theme in afghanistan: you ehlped my neighbor but you didnt help me, so I don't like you.

I have had a slight paradigm shift in Afghanistan. I am totally, completely, 100% against re-integration. I am almost against this step-baby of COIN where we try to build government support by handing the government goods and services behind closed doors, so the government can deliver to the people for the photo-op. These photo ops of an ANA soldier handing out teddy bears make me sick. On top of that, the people know who the teddy bears came from, and they know that if we weren't there the ANA would be keeping them for themselves.

We have put war criminals from both the northern alliance and the taliban into the government.

a completely inoffensive name

12-23-2011, 23:57

Ah yes. This horrible prevailing modern view that the west is evil. I won't deny, the west does some awful stuff--but we also do some good stuff. The US Army, in particular, goes to tremendous lengths to be both humanitarian and lethal at the same time. This, by the way, comes at great cost to the average soldier. But who cares, right? The US is Evil, and so everyone hates them. So easy to believe that nobody ever tries to actually verify it.

The West isn't evil, but US foreign policy is.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

12-24-2011, 00:42

The West isn't evil, but US foreign policy is.

No, it's just self interested, there's a difference.

a completely inoffensive name

12-24-2011, 00:54

No, it's just self interested, there's a difference.

Not really when we ruin the lives of future generations of Americans, Iraqi's and Afghani's. I am sure the war criminals that MRD speaks of will do a fine job once we leave Afghanistan. And I am sure my kids will do fine with schools funded by a drained treasury.

This isn't even self-interest at this point. This is just feel good money being thrown at a black hole because we don't want another Vietnam and have the world figure out that Iraq and Afghanistan haven't turned out as we planned.

a completely inoffensive name

12-24-2011, 08:15

US Foreign Policy is a very, very large beast of which Iraq and Afghanistan are only a small part. Regardless, you don't seem to be considering any of my points. At all. So.. I guess we'll just try this again after the truce.

What other parts did you want to look at?

The part where we give supplies to areas that are devastated by rebels and won't ever rebuild while we hesitate on sending troops there (one of the few legitimate places to send US troops)? Because it's fun sending food and money to constantly cover the symptoms while not treating the cause.

What about the part where we make enemies out of our allies in the UN due to our Isreal fetish? It's good to support your friends, it's another to be it's lapdog.

How about the part where we have troops and bases in every westernized country across the world and to pull them all back means according to PVC that every European will just roll over and let Putin or China be the new rulers of Earth.

How about the part where every democratic rebellion in the middle east is an intricate chess game because the rulers everyone are rebelling against are monsters we propped up and supported up until the civil war broke out.

But please tell me about the part where we gave toys to boys and girls. Oh wait, if I remember MRD's post correctly, they had to cut off the toys from the boys because they were beating up each other and the girls to get the rest. (I guess the thread I am recalling that from got deleted, because it's not coming up in the search.)

Where's the good part again?

Tuuvi

12-24-2011, 09:25

I don't think you can blame paragraph 5 on US foreign policy.

a completely inoffensive name

12-24-2011, 12:27

Good post, actually. In one post, you've supported everything i've been saying in this thread. Something you might be surprised to notice, if you go back a few pages and start reading.

My main thesis, here, is that most of our international activities are bad, and that Ron Paul is the only person running for office who is willing to cut back on this business.

HOWEVER, what we did in Iraq was largely good, and the country has a very serious chance to move forward in a positive way. We could do the same in Afghanistan, if we were willing to attack Pakistan, and attack them properly. I don't support ten-year-long occupations. They don't generally work. But I'll be damned if you're going to sit there and call us monsters for our conduct--which has, with a few awful exceptions, been exemplary.

I am not calling the soldiers monsters at all. I am saying the policy makers are monsters for going into a war knowing that the enemy is going to harbor itself in an "allied" country where we can't touch them because we are afraid any instability will cause nukes to fall into the wrong hands.

Iraq will be determined in 10-15 years. But judging from the other middle east revolutions taking place the probability lies with some hard-line islamic political party taking control and instituting sharia law. Such freedom.

a completely inoffensive name

12-24-2011, 12:32

I don't think you can blame paragraph 5 on US foreign policy.

EDIT: Nvm, I can't count.

Tellos Athenaios

01-02-2012, 23:18

a completely inoffensive name

01-03-2012, 00:29

But the second part simply doesn't ring true, or at least isn't consistent with what the admins actually did. The Taliban weren't much of a threat when they did hide in Pakistan, and even then the USA did conduct clandestine missions there. Rather, the USA dropped the ball when it decided to go invade Iraq: during that timeframe the Taliban managed to come out of hiding and regroup and reestablish themselves as a big bully. Still, the USA continues to execute clandestine missions in Pakistan -- you might recall a certain O.B.L being shot during a raid, for instance.

So the problem is being addressed, and anyway you can hardly blame the lawmakers for not invading Pakistan at the time. I mean, consider, formally you went in on the casus belli of them bearing part of the responsibility for 9-11. So what should you have done instead? Invade the neighbour and formal ally instead but leave the culprits alone?

Or would you want to invade Pakistan out of moral indignation or something now? Really?

After Tora Bora we should have told Pakistan that we now believe that the bad guys we are looking for have taken solace across state lines and that we are continuing our mission to bring them justice by sending in troops after them in Pakistan territory, whether they like it or not. Instead we did clandestine missions and took care to not offend our "ally" and it's sovereignty and now 11 years later because we didn't have a solid presence in the Pakistani mountains, they regrouped and are staging their campaign there, putting us in a bad light when our actions in Pakistani territory become known because we are not "respectful" with our collateral damage that comes along with war.

Iraq was just the nail in the coffin that completely killed any chance of recovering from this path of hoping bee stings will kill the enemy.

Lemur

01-03-2012, 15:34

Headline of the week:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/santorumsurges.jpg

Hax

01-03-2012, 15:58

I thought you were talking about Ron Paul until I read "frothy".

Hax

01-03-2012, 16:32

So yeah, count me surprised, I think "hate-mongering" is the last thing people could say about Congressman Paul.

Hax

01-03-2012, 17:29

No, I knew you were talking about Santorum. Use of the word "frothy" spelled it out for me.

Hax

01-03-2012, 17:55

Oooh, you don't know the joke!

Oh yes I did! As I said, the fact that you used the word frothy made me realise you were talking about Rick Santorum rather than Ron Paul!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-03-2012, 18:56

Oooh.. this is an interesting head trip right here. I mis-errored your non-error and responded by being redundant! Clearly I need to lay off the skooma.

Or just not stay up playing Skyrim until it's light outside.

Before we get to shouting jokes, I should point out that I used nothing but the exclamation "SIR!" to throw a Captain in British Army's Devon and Dorset Light Infantry back about four feet, before I had even passed my 19th birthday too!

Lemur

01-03-2012, 23:24

An interesting breakdown. Looks like Perry is getting the least return for his money free speech.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/repub_spending_iowa.jpg

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-03-2012, 23:49

Holy crap, how has Bachman made it this far without money!? It can't be her winning personality or her thoughtful ideas.

Fox News.

That's how your country works now, not even money is enough to defeat the helpful hand from above, and I don't mean God's, unless he's an Octenagarian Australian Expat.

Centurion1

01-04-2012, 00:56

i dislike bachmann and would never vote for the woman but it should be noted she is a well educated and intelligent woman.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2012, 02:04

Bleah. This is all Reagan's fault, you know. He and his people revolutionized politics, and this is the result. Thanks for beating the Russians, Ron, but damn!

Actually, I think blame can be placed more directly at Bush and to a lesser extent Clinton's doorstep. Reagan's presidency was actually relatively traditional, Clinton and Bush were actually much more about the domineering personality politics, as is Obama.

I think you're also suffering from fatigue with a constitutionally two part system. Hell, it used to be that the VP was the runner up to the president.

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 02:11

Actually, I think blame can be placed more directly at Bush and to a lesser extent Clinton's doorstep. Reagan's presidency was actually relatively traditional, Clinton and Bush were actually much more about the domineering personality politics, as is Obama.

I think you're also suffering from fatigue with a constitutionally two part system. Hell, it used to be that the VP was the runner up to the president.

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

Reagan got swept in by his personality more than anything else. Bush's was in Reagan's administration, and Bush kept a lot of the Reagan team with him as did Bush Jr. The modern conservative movement begins with Reagan and his grandstanding.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-04-2012, 02:19

I've been an advocate of demolishing the 2-party system my whole life. It makes it too easy for an alliance of the strong against the weak.

Now, I do agree with everything you said. I think Bush will be remembered as the most influential, controversial, and all-around wierdest president we've had in a very long time. His Fingerprints will be felt for a long time, for good or ill (too early to be definitive).

However, I believe Reagan and his people set the events in motion which led to Bush being electable in the first place.

There's a rule in politics, a dissafected constituancy will either find a candidate or a candidate will find them. America has a lot of problems, including a fetish with guns, a fear of any social-democratic policy and a polarisation between the "intellectual" and the "faithful". If you look back historically though you'll see that the Democrats abandoned their religious constituency when they took up social activism. The right to exercise concience became divorced from social responsibility (affermative action happened) and as a resulte the religious flocked to the only party to offer shelter, the Republicans. The flip side of that was that Democrats became "ungodly" and hence so did their policies.

I would blame the sixties, not Reagan.

aimlesswanderer

01-04-2012, 02:23

Somehow that makes it even worse. She's clearly not dumb, and I think she's actually kinda cute, but she's just got so much HATE. In the words of Ron Paul "That woman really does not like muslim people."

Bachman especially, Santorum and Perry all seem like crackpots. How they could possibly be even vaguely considered presidential material is a real concern.

Paul, despite some odd policies, at least seems reasonable, intelligent, and not crazy. Huntsman seems sensible and intelligent, but that seems like the opposite of what the most ardent republicans (who turn out for the primary process) wants, which is a worry.

Romney seems to be the least worse of the front runners, despite his impressive inconsistency. Gingrich seems to be incredibly inconsistent and dodgy. From memory, hard to top serving your cancer recovering wife divorce papers while she's in hospital. 3 wives, religion change, ethics violations - quite impressive really.

Ice

01-04-2012, 02:24

I hope Ron Paul wins just to piss off the neocons.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 02:56

So far Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are getting an early lead as the first results come out.

tibilicus

01-04-2012, 03:03

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results

For those who are tentatively interested.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 03:05

Oh it's a three way tie now. Oh my lordy lord lord.

tibilicus

01-04-2012, 03:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Powerful stuff.

Centurion1

01-04-2012, 04:10

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY

Powerful stuff.

I will allow someone else to address this because it just makes me roll my eyes. Ask most of Europe, ask NATO, ask South Korea.

One day dammit I just want the US to completely withdraw absolutely from the rest of the world. And I just want to sit back and watch Europe or anybody on earth try to fill the policing role we used to hold.

smh.

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 04:36

America has a lot of problems, including a fetish with guns,

Do you mind expanding on this idea?

Lemur

01-04-2012, 04:40

How will the #1 anti-Ron-Paul media establishment (http://www.foxnews.com/) spin a Paul win? Should be interesting.

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 04:55

How will the #1 anti-Ron-Paul media establishment (http://www.foxnews.com/) spin a Paul win? Should be interesting.

Doesn't look like its going to happen. Would be sweet to have him and Romney come 1 and 2 in the heart of evangelical country, though.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 04:58

Doesn't look like its going to happen. Would be sweet to have him and Romney come 1 and 2 in the heart of evangelical country, though.

Paul looks to have 3rd place locked in. Considering the breakdown is 25, 25 and paul with 21 that is not too bad.

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 05:01

Paul looks to have 3rd place locked in. Considering the breakdown is 25, 25 and paul with 21 that is not too bad.

Nah, but it is enough for the media to continue to marginalize him.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 05:03

Nah, but it is enough for the media to continue to marginalize him.

Did you expect the media to not marginalize him if he won?

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 05:05

Did you expect the media to not marginalize him if he won?

He would have to be taken more seriously at first than third, at least until New Hampshire.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 05:07

He would have to be taken more seriously at first than third, at least until New Hampshire.

Not really. They were planning on calling Iowa a fluke from the get go if Ron Paul won.

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 05:08

Not really. They were planning on calling Iowa a fluke from the get go if Ron Paul won.

Ahh, I didn't know you had Rupert on speed dial.

a completely inoffensive name

01-04-2012, 05:11

Ahh, I didn't know you had Rupert on speed dial.

That's what establishment commentators have always been saying.

"I think that Gingrich, Santorum or Romney will definitely take the lead in Iowa."
"What about Ron Paul."
"I think if Ron Paul wins, that shows that the caucus may turn out to be a fluke since Paul has no support in New Hampshire nor anything visible in South Carolina."

Tuuvi

01-04-2012, 07:47

So during Christmas I went to visit my grandparents and my grandma told me that Mitt Romney is my 4th or 5th cousin :laugh4:

Here's a thought though, successive primaries are inherrently bad in a media era like this one and should be abolished immidiately. The vote should be done in one day.

This is my first time paying attention to a primary, and it's pissing me off that just a handful of states gets to decide who the nominee is. This year the state of Nevada tried to move their primary to an earlier date because they were tired of their vote not meaning anything and the Republican party threw a fit, with some of the candidates saying they would boycott Nevada because for some reason the citizens of New Hampshire are more important than the citizens of Nevada. That doesn't seem very democratic to me.

Well, the problem is very simple for me. Both parties support things I need and support things I abhore. And significant deviance from the party line just does not happen any more, and when it does its newsworthy. This is sad.

For example, the Democrats generally support social freedom and a rational attitude towards the poor. I like that. On the other hand, they are quick to embrace any populist cause (and all the associated junk-science and irrationalism) without considering the real world--a sure sign that they are interested in power more than results.

The Republicans support fiscal responsibility (in theory only these days), gun rights (Its a god damned right, and the only sure insurance policy against tyranny) and they have a certain realpolitik and sensibility when it comes to populist issues (or at least the good ones do). On the other hand, they've been totally high-jacked by the religious right and the neo-cons, who are 100% Wolves in Sheeps Clothing.

Those are not viable parties. They are often self-contradicting. Our political system is a joke, and needs to be fixed. The Founding Fathers would likely die of shame if they saw what has become of their ideals.

Everything you just wrote echoes my thoughts on the Democrat and Republican parties. I also think the bipartisan bickering that has become a staple of US politics distracts people from the more devious motives of our politicians. For example, yesterday I was googling the NDAA act of 2012, where the government can detain US citizens indefinitely without a trial or lawyer if they're suspected of terrorism, and one blog that I found that was obviously pro-Obama said that the Republicans just put that in the bill so they could make Obama look like a dictator, when in reality democrats and republicans voted for the bill and only a handful of senators voted against it.

tibilicus

01-04-2012, 12:53

I will allow someone else to address this because it just makes me roll my eyes. Ask most of Europe, ask NATO, ask South Korea.

One day dammit I just want the US to completely withdraw absolutely from the rest of the world. And I just want to sit back and watch Europe or anybody on earth try to fill the policing role we used to hold.

smh.

You should have detected my sarcasm. ~;)

PanzerJaeger

01-04-2012, 15:24

Last night's caucuses confirmed a suspicion I have had for a while. That is that evangelicals are not looking for a more conservative alternative to Romney, but a more evangelical (read: not Mormon) one. After all, Romney was the conservative alternative in 08. It is kind of disappointing, as I have always thought of small minded block voting as a Democratic evil. Santorum is a big government evangelical, and certainly no more conservative than Romney. He represents everything I had hoped the GOP was moving away from - big spending, activist government, overt religiosity, gay bashing, and other wedge issue politics. What he has not ever been is a successful manager.

Or maybe my definition of 'conservative' is out of date. The GOP may be devolving back to its pre-Reagan roots, which does not bode well for the eventual nominee. The three way split in Iowa says a lot about the movement. You had the Northeastern pro-business Republican, the Southwestern libertarian, and the evangelical reactionary. Reagan was able to unite these disparate groups (although not in Iowa), as was W.

Lemur

01-04-2012, 15:54

The three way split in Iowa says a lot about the movement. You had the Northeastern pro-business Republican, the Southwestern libertarian, and the evangelical reactionary.
A summary I read this morning put it this way: mainstream Republicans went for Romney, evangelicals broke for Santorum, and the independents and indy-leaners went for RuPaul. Quite a fracture.

drone

01-04-2012, 19:29

Bachmann dropped out, I'm guessing her voters go to Perry or Santorum in upcoming primaries. One more wing-nut gone... NEXT!

Lemur

01-04-2012, 22:02

Bachmann dropped out
Or as one wag put it:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bachman_out.png

Crazed Rabbit

01-05-2012, 04:03

Santorum: Big government freedom hater;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=03zFTTqHScI#!

But wait, he does well because 'conservative Christians' will vote for the most devoted Christian, and the most statist Christian at that.
:wall:

CR

PanzerJaeger

01-05-2012, 18:13

Or as one wag put it:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bachman_out.png

:laugh:

Back to skulking around in the bushes outside of gay clubs for those two trolls.

In other news, life still sucks for Mitt Romney. After ignoring Iowa this cycle, he jumped in the state in the last week with a staff of five and did about four events and ended up winning the caucuses. The next day all the media could talk about was what a weak candidate he is. Today I flipped on the TV and the big question was whether a Romney win in New Hampshire of less than 40 points would actually constitute a win for Santorum. The media wants this to be as long and drawn out as possible.

Lemur

01-05-2012, 20:04

The media wants this to be as long and drawn out as possible.
Well, as many people have noted, the media has a bias toward conflict and simplicity. So if they can simplify and draw out a conflict ... bit of a no-brainer, right?

Vladimir

01-05-2012, 20:45

Well, as many people have noted, the media has a bias toward conflict and simplicity. So if they can simplify and draw out a conflict ... bit of a no-brainer, right?

Yup. They need to attract sponsors. Simple business.

Ronin

01-06-2012, 13:20

I think they want to have the candidate that pledged to ban all porn on the election....think of the comedy possibilities!!!

Nowake

01-07-2012, 05:18

Only wanted to drop by to belatedly plug in this awesome and rather hilarious statement!

NOTE: Language Warning - CountArach

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&hl=en&v=qLZZ6JD0g9Y

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 14:24

Hi guys,

Sorry I don't get on that much anymore. 2 young daughters and a job that takes you all over the world (and not in a good way) doesn't leave much time for forum-chatting.

Wanted to weigh in on the GOP nomination (living in NH, my vote counts more than most of yours :clown:).

I'm 3 days away, and still not 100% sure, believe it or not. But in the absence of a clear favorite, I've been using process of elimination, and Ron Paul just made that list. While I like a lot of his core libertarian values, his understanding of economics has seemed childish and cartoonish.... Break the banking monopoly by returning to the gold standard? Don't banks get MORE powerful when there's a finite supply specie currency that they can own? Do we really want a nation of Pottersvilles (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038650/)?

But I was willing to keep him in the mix, until I started hearing about all of these newsletters 'a unknown staffer' authored in his name that would do a Grand Dragon proud. His disavowals are weak and liquid, as though he's daring people to call him on it. Then this: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/us-usa-campaign-huntsman-idUSTRE80601720120107). Sorry, the guy is a bigot. Plain and simple. And he plays to bigots. And I suspect his support comes from bigots.

And what's more, his "let China and Iran do whatever they want" foreign policy smacks of being the real Manchurian candidate. Has anybody checked his contributors?

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 14:36

Also eliminated from my list:

Michele Bachmann (pretty much from Day 1)
Rick Perry (but kudos for the raw comedy of attempting to name cabinet positions he'd eliminate, I haven't laughed that hard in years)
Herman Cain (What a train-wreck)
Newt Gingrich (I haven't trusted this guy since before I owned a cell-phone)
Ron Paul (Will the real imperial wizard please stand up)

Which leaves me with:

Santorum (big government social conservatives do nothing for me)
Huntsman (bright and capable, he'd be my favorite but has almost no chance of winning the nomination)
Romney (He may be a flip-flopper, and he may have no political compass, just an anemometer, but we could do worse).

To paraphrase Jack Nicholson from the Two Jakes "Around here, we're just looking for the leper with the most fingers..."

PanzerJaeger

01-07-2012, 14:57

Great to see you around here, Don!

Then this: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/us-usa-campaign-huntsman-idUSTRE80601720120107). Sorry, the guy is a bigot. Plain and simple. And he plays to bigots. And I suspect his support comes from bigots.

And what's more, his "let China and Iran do whatever they want" foreign policy smacks of being the real Manchurian candidate. Has anybody checked his contributors?

To be fair, there is absolutely no evidence that the video is at all connected to Paul or his campaign. I mean, I could post a nasty video to a youtube channel called RomneySupporters4Freedom.

In fact, the whole episode seems fishy. The channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/NHLiberty4Paul?feature=watch) was created on the 4th, seemingly just to post that single video. Paul supporters are certainly zealous, but they are also usually pretty politically savvy. It does not take a political genius to realize how such an ad would play in New Hampshire, much less in the greater media coverage of the campaign. Paul is currently running second in a race where there will likely only be two tickets on to South Carolina. The video seems designed to knock Paul down, not build him up.

CountArach

01-07-2012, 15:12

In fact, the whole episode seems fishy. The channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/NHLiberty4Paul?feature=watch) was created on the 4th, seemingly just to post that single video. Paul supporters are certainly zealous, but they are also usually pretty politically savvy. It does not take a political genius to realize how such an ad would play in New Hampshire, much less in the greater media coverage of the campaign. Paul is currently running second in a race where there will likely only be two tickets on to South Carolina. The video seems designed to knock Paul down, not build him up.
That seems to be a common opinion (http://www.theendrun.com/huntsman-complicit-in-false-flag-style-dirty-trick-against-paul). The evidence seems to stack up and I don't think that some people would be beyond that...

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 15:14

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-07-2012, 16:57

Thanks, PJ.

Don't know...how many different racist rants over the past 30 years have to be attributed to him before we have to give the guy a little more scrutiny?

I hear what you're saying, and were this the first or the third such incident, I would certainly give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But after a while, when smoke is continuously billowing out of one's house, others must be led to conclude that one has a fire going in there (gender netural pronoun usage specifically for No-Wake, just to demonstrate how awkward it can be).

This was asked about his anti-gay views. Homosexual campaigner put it like this, "he might hate gays, but he won't use the federal government to enforce his views, so that's better than all the others."

Have a think about that. Maybe they're just all worse than Obama this time around (and I'm no fan, believe me).

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 17:03

This was asked about his anti-gay views. Homosexual campaigner put it like this, "he might hate gays, but he won't use the federal government to enforce his views, so that's better than all the others."

Have a think about that. Maybe they're just all worse than Obama this time around (and I'm no fan, believe me).

Huntsman would be far better than Obama. Romney would as well. Both are as easily corruptable as Da Chi-town Boss, in fact one already is arguably as tainted as Obama. But beyond integrity, there's also questions of competency. Mitt Romney might very well be up for sale to the lobbies, but he's savvy enough with the way business works to know when he's being asked for too much and would refuse a request that would jeopardize the overall health of the nation, for motivated self-interest if nothing else.

Bush and his administration cared too much about implementing their foreign policy goals and signed any deal they had to keep it rolling (ala Medicaid Part D).

Obama seems to genuinely 'not get it'. He really has no idea what he's doing with the economy, with playing partisan politics with Congress to get his agendas implemented, with demonstrating leadership at home and abroad, with doing anything. He can't even appease any one wing of his own party, forget the neutral middle or God forbid the opposition. I don't actually believe that he intended to embolden Iran to feel enabled to attack Israel and to thumb their nose at the global community with nuclear weapons, but I do believe his statements and actions have accomplished this very result.

The last "competent" president we had in this country was Clinton. I can forgive corruption in light of competency, but I cannot forgive the inverse, and I certainly cannot tolerate both (as is currently being practiced on Pennsylvania Avenue).

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2012, 22:01

I enjoy it whenever a president operates in a way that people are not used to, that the president just, "doesn't get it".

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 22:14

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 22:15

In fact it's good to see everybody I've managed to pass in the hall today. First Saturday I've had free to veg in many a fortnight.

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2012, 22:31

Chronic unemployment, record debts, emboldened enemies, the most unpopular piece of legislation in American history passed under nefarious means, direct violation of numerous campaign pledges including the use of signing statements, an overreaching domestic security force and a non-existent border control. That doesn't sound like a track-record I'd care to own.

A. Unemployment from what I read just went down to 8.5%. Asking for an economy to be completely fixed in 4 years is stupid. If anyone thinks this crisis could have been over in 4 years, you are wrong.
B. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1
C. Emboldened enemies? Who? Iran? I am guessing you are one of those imperialists that think we should have troops in every middle eastern country, since the only "emboldened" enemies are those we continually make the in the region by sticking our military everywhere. Moment I saw you were thinking of Santorum, I knew something was off.
D. You have your blinders on when it comes to the health care bill like most conservatives. "The most unpopular..." Fox News garbage. Nefarious means? He had a supermajority and at the end of the day he got the votes for it. The right didn't like it because they were stupid and contrarian since most of the bill came from 90s Republicans like Bob Dole. Left didn't like it because it didn't go far enough. Since everyone just looooooooooooooves bipartisanship and compromise Obama decided not to implement a single payer system, and now you come along saying that because like with most compromises, neither side got what they wanted, it is the "most hated thing ever blah blah blah". Pssh.
E. Want to talk about campaign promises? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Oh look, he has kept around 3 times more promises than broken. And has got a compromise on many others. Gee, what an ineffective president. Again, you like many other middle aged conservatives don't know what you are talking about because you just follow the MSM and call yourself "educated". Perfectly shown by your ignorance about Ron Paul.

If you think Lemur is left? Christ, read r/politics in Reddit and have a wake up call buddy. Again, your ignorance is showing.[/QUOTE]

Ironside

01-07-2012, 22:36

America has a lot of problems, including a fetish with guns,

Do you mind expanding on this idea?

Now PVC never took up on the issue, but sometimes it does feel like a lot of Americans think of the final line of defense (second ammendment) and the only line of defense (with the nuts dreaming of the day to use it) and is therefore tolerating a lot more of political crap than they should.

There's also the violent crime against the police and the toleration of a violent and aggressive police, but I'm not sure if that's really linked to guns or simply a problem.

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 22:43

Sorry dude, I'm not a FoxNews guy. In fact, I'm not really a conservative, more like professional cynic. Since the rest of your post is pretty much non-stop series of personal attacks and distortions, it's not worth responding to.

Wishing you a happy New Year though. :clown:

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2012, 22:50

Tis why I said MSM, which isn't just FoxNews. Go ahead and walk away from when someone gives you links, makes it easier to think.

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 23:06

A. Unemployment from what I read just went down to 8.5%. Asking for an economy to be completely fixed in 4 years is stupid. If anyone thinks this crisis could have been over in 4 years, you are wrong.
B. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html?_r=1
C. Emboldened enemies? Who? Iran? I am guessing you are one of those imperialists that think we should have troops in every middle eastern country, since the only "emboldened" enemies are those we continually make the in the region by sticking our military everywhere. Moment I saw you were thinking of Santorum, I knew something was off.
D. You have your blinders on when it comes to the health care bill like most conservatives. "The most unpopular..." Fox News garbage. Nefarious means? He had a supermajority and at the end of the day he got the votes for it. The right didn't like it because they were stupid and contrarian since most of the bill came from 90s Republicans like Bob Dole. Left didn't like it because it didn't go far enough. Since everyone just looooooooooooooves bipartisanship and compromise Obama decided not to implement a single payer system, and now you come along saying that because like with most compromises, neither side got what they wanted, it is the "most hated thing ever blah blah blah". Pssh.
E. Want to talk about campaign promises? http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/ Oh look, he has kept around 3 times more promises than broken. And has got a compromise on many others. Gee, what an ineffective president. Again, you like many other middle aged conservatives don't know what you are talking about because you just follow the MSM and call yourself "educated". Perfectly shown by your ignorance about Ron Paul.

If you think Lemur is left? Christ, read r/politics in Reddit and have a wake up call buddy. Again, your ignorance is showing.[/QUOTE]

I don't see much thinking going in the above. The most credible thing you posted was citing Paul Krugman as an unbiased and absolute authority. *cough*

I don't fight anymore. I don't level personal attacks, and I don't answer those who do. You win the argument chief.

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2012, 23:09

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 23:15

Kk, ignore politifact. Don't bother with a retort. Easier to play victim card. I say you are ignorant about Ron Paul since you call him a grand wizard, you say "personal attacks, I am out of here." Good job.

Here's something from the bowels of the ultra-right-wing-paranoid underground: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html)

a completely inoffensive name

01-07-2012, 23:27

Here's something from the bowels of the ultra-right-wing-paranoid underground: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html)

From the article you linked:
The Texas congressman has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them. He earns three Pinocchios for failing to do so.

Aaaand he did:
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/201701-paul-i-had-some-responsibility-for-controversial-newsletters-

Secondly, the article you linked to might as well be an opinion piece. It lists what Ron Paul said, and the timeline in which things happened then just goes on to say, "Oh come on, it's obvious Ron Paul is a racist." Even though the article states this earlier:

As for Paul’s comments about Rosa Parks, the candidate didn’t show much love for his “hero” when he voted against a measure to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the civil rights icon in 1999. To be fair, he opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

It doesn't appear? Weasel words. Indicative of bias going into the article.

Here is a video with a clearer timeline:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0hpiwfM2qo

I honestly don't see how it is so "clear" that Ron Paul is racist, when only 8 news letters had racist content in it at all. If he wrote it, there would be much more content. Racists don't tend to be shy with their views.

From the article you linked:

We won’t be the judge of whether Paul is a bigot, but we can examine the extent to which he had control over his publications.
...
The Texas congressman has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them. He earns three Pinocchios for failing to do so.

No judgement! But here is our view....

Don Corleone

01-07-2012, 23:47

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-07-2012, 23:50

Do you mind expanding on this idea?

Basically, you have a culture of own guns "because". Most people who own guns for self defence don't really understand them, and when you look at the sort of people who own them and the reasons you can see they're nothing put psychological props. For example, a former marine from Indiana was arrested recently when he asked where to check his concealed pistol (for which he had a permit from his home state). Why was he carrying the weapon? He was trading jewelry (one must assume reputably)

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/03/marine-faces-fifteen-years-behind-bars-for-unknowingly-violating-gun-law/

He doesn't need to the gun. The case will probably be cuffed to him anyway, and the only time he's need a gun is if someone is pointing one at him, in which case he won't draw before he dies. The fact is, he can get someone to drive him to the airport, get on the blame, get off, get into another car, go to a hotel or the jeweler and do his business, leave unencumbered. There is no concievable point at which he would need to use a firearm, unless he is an idiot, being a military man if he was actually worried he'd take a bodyguard, because that guy would not be the one carrying the case and is therefore less likely to be the target.

That gun was about as much use as a parachute, just in case he was on top of a skyscraper and someone pushed him off.

Americans seem to see guns as a form of protection, rather than as weapons. A bullet proof vest or a panic alarm is a form of protection, a gun is for killing people and if that's not what it's being used for it's a waste of money.

Chronic unemployment, record debts, emboldened enemies, the most unpopular piece of legislation in American history passed under nefarious means, direct violation of numerous campaign pledges including the use of signing statements, an overreaching domestic security force and a non-existent border control. That doesn't sound like a track-record I'd care to own.

The real barometer I'd use for evaluating Obama's administration so far? Ask Lemur and other more reasoned left-leaning thinkers (sorry CION, but I tend to tune the DailyKos crowd out).

Good to see you again though, chief. Glad to know like death & taxes, some things never change.

Chronic unemployement: Not chronic and not his fault any more than Europe's

Record debts: Bush's fault, but also Congress. Balencing America's debts just requires the institutions of state-pooled health insurence in exchange for ditching Medicare/Medicaid (band aid on a gunshot wound) along with rolling back Bush's defnece spending increases and tax cuts. A European could do it in aweekend, as we proved at least a year ago on this forum.

Emboldened Enemies: Who's that?

As to the rest, all your politicians lie to you; Santorum recently said that the NHS killed the British Empire, which is not only wrong but impossible from a timeline perspective.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-07-2012, 23:52

-Martin Luther King Jr. was a philanderer who beat his paramours.

And Ghandi was a racist - I don't know about phyiscal abuse, but he was certainly a philanderer, that has been pretty conclusively proved now, I believe.

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2012, 00:06

The man establishes an organization that publishes uncredited articles with his name across the top of the newsletters. Among other things that are claimed over time:

-Martin Luther King Jr. was a philanderer who beat his paramours.
-That gays enjoy the pity and attention of being sick (with AIDS).
-That blacks only stopped rioting in LA in 1992 to get their welfare checks.

In a column in New York magazine (certainly no bastion of right-wing journalism):

Through it all, Paul's answer is "Don't ask me, I just published the thing..." and refuses to say anything more. In fact, he attacks those who dare question his association with the newsletters and the racist & homophobic rants found within.

Even if he's telling the truth, even if he just released a bunch of hacks to publish a newsletter in his name that got outside their box and has steadfastly refused to address the issue or answer questions for 20 years...

Is that the guy you really want to be president?

The Cato institute has dozens of people on their staff that do a better job representing Libertarian arguments than Ron Paul. Ron Paul is at best arrogant, reckless and irresponsible. At worst, a bigot who uses the term Libertarian to hide his true views.

But here is the thing, when you say over time, the actual time line is about 4 years. The newsletter was around for decades. There were 8 newsletters with racist content, there were over 400 newsletters in total. The news letters came out after he had retired from politics and was no longer in the game.

Where is the regularity? How are 8 news letters over a 4-5 year time span indicative of a "constant ideological theme" when Ron Paul's newsletter and his career spans decades.

I personally don't want Ron Paul to be president (I just think him as the Republican candidate would shake things up). I don't agree with his economics at all.

"In fact, he attacks those who dare question his association with the newsletters and the racist & homophobic rants found within."
Umm who wouldn't? When you have people asking you if you are racist and you are not, anyone would get pissed very easily. Ask (most) people who are anti-affirmative action if they are racist, and they will have a word or two with you.

When you say, "is this the guy you want to be president?" That is an odd question. Because you can throw that at anybody in the world to cast doubt on an individual.

Gingrich cheated on 2 wives, one of which had cancer. Even if he went to God for forgiveness, is that the guy you really want to be president?
Obama re-authorized the PATRIOT ACT. Even if he has kept most of his promises, is that the guy you really want to be president?
Perry doesn't know the government departments, even if he just had a bad moment like the rest of us, is that the guy you really want to be president?
Santorum thinks "pursuit of happiness" is inherently anti-american.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03zFTTqHScI
Is that the guy you really want to be president?

Romney has no allegiance to any ideology.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g
But even if he "came to his senses" and truly believes what he is saying, is that the guy you really want to be president?

Ron Paul's fault is that he didn't pay attention to what he put his name on. Santorum, Romney and Gingrich's fault is that they are openly hostile to american way of life or they are complete washington insiders willing to drop all their previous statements at the drop of a hat. At least Paul is consistent his entire life.

Don Corleone

01-08-2012, 00:13

Chronic unemployement: Not chronic and not his fault any more than Europe's Unemployment rates above 8% for 3 or more years might be normal in Europe, but they cripple America, because we don't have the same unemployment insurance and social safety nets that you do. What's more, depsite the recent dip, the numbers of "long-term unemployed", those out of work for 90 days or longer, has remained constant. The average length of unemployment has grown from 19.4 weeks in Jan 2009 to 39.7 weeks in June 2011 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/average-length-of-unemployment-at-all-time-high/). I don't blame Obama for causing the unemployment. He inherited a crap-bag of an economy. But I do blame him for it staying so high and for it growing in length. The private sector isn't hiring because they're terrified of where all the defecit spending is taking us. Based on where Europe's heading, they don't appear to be irrational in that fear.

Record debts: Bush's fault, but also Congress. Balencing America's debts just requires the institutions of state-pooled health insurence in exchange for ditching Medicare/Medicaid (band aid on a gunshot wound) along with rolling back Bush's defnece spending increases and tax cuts. A European could do it in aweekend, as we proved at least a year ago on this forum. Bush's fault, Congress's fault (agreed) and Obama's fault. You can only continue to blame the old guy until you get to draft your own budget. Obama has had time to get 2 approved and is working on his 3rd. Has grown defecits faster than Bush.

Emboldened Enemies: Who's that? Iran. (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/average-length-of-unemployment-at-all-time-high/). Russia. (http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-28/news/30564262_1_nuclear-warheads-iskander-missiles-submarine) China. (http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2011/August/opinion_August115.xml&section=opinion&col) Perhaps 'enemy' is too strong a term for Russia and China, so kindly allow me change my statement to "Emboldened Rivals".

As to the rest, all your politicians lie to you; Santorum recently said that the NHS killed the British Empire, which is not only wrong but impossible from a timeline perspective. I can't stand Santorum, and yes, they all lie, and I believe the vast majority, if not all, to be as crooked as a dog's hind leg. But in spite of that, we are forced to ask, are they competent? If faced with a choice between Santorum and Obama, I'd sell my house and move to Singapore, because America would collapse before the winner's term was over. I didn't put him in my elimination list because I don't characterize him as "worse than Obama", but in that particular coin-toss, neither leper would have enough fingers for my tastes.

Wow. Somebody can take exception with my statements without telling me how stupid, ignorant, lazy and benighted I am. Shocked, shocked I tell you...And gosh, I actually took the time to answer this person.

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2012, 00:15

Don Corleone

01-08-2012, 00:35

But here is the thing, when you say over time, the actual time line is about 4 years. The newsletter was around for decades. There were 8 newsletters with racist content, there were over 400 newsletters in total. The news letters came out after he had retired from politics and was no longer in the game. So it's okay to to publish racial and homophobic screeds with your own name on the masthead, so long as you have a period of time where you keep it quiet (like when you decide to move onto the National scene)? There were more than 8 newsletters, there were 8 newsletters cited. Again, if I only make 8 public anti-semitic remarks, do I have the right to turn around and wonder why the ADL has an issue with me?

I personally don't want Ron Paul to be president (I just think him as the Republican candidate would shake things up). I don't agree with his economics at all. I was going to ask you this, but thank you for volunteering. So your interest in Paul isn't really in him, it's in making sure Obama goes up against a wing-nut. I suspected as much.

"In fact, he attacks those who dare question his association with the newsletters and the racist & homophobic rants found within."
Umm who wouldn't? When you have people asking you if you are racist and you are not, anyone would get pissed very easily. Ask (most) people who are anti-affirmative action if they are racist, and they will have a word or two with you.
It depends. If I published "As Don Corleone sees it" as an email, and I let people publish anything they wanted in anonymity, I would absolutely expect to field questions on opinions that were served up. His repeated refusal to answer and prickliness tells me (suspicious of anybody that wants to hold office) that the questions are hitting home.

When you say, "is this the guy you want to be president?" That is an odd question. Because you can throw that at anybody in the world to cast doubt on an individual. It's not an odd question at all if the person you're asking it about is seeking the office.

Gingrich cheated on 2 wives, one of which had cancer. Even if he went to God for forgiveness, is that the guy you really want to be president? And sat next to Nancy Pelosi and stumped for a Carbon Credit Exchange, and now claims he never did. I've got not use for this gasbag.

Obama re-authorized the PATRIOT ACT. Even if he has kept most of his promises, is that the guy you really want to be president? Nope.

Perry doesn't know the government departments, even if he just had a bad moment like the rest of us, is that the guy you really want to be president? And has some very interesting views on immigration and federal spending. After the last Texas governor to seek the White House, he gets 2-strikes.

Santorum thinks "pursuit of happiness" is inherently anti-american.
Is that the guy you really want to be president? I'm not a Santorum fan. He's a social conservative only and has little to no problem with using the power of the federal government to enforce his own personal views. And has no experience balancing budgets. Not qualified.

Romney has no allegiance to any ideology.

But even if he "came to his senses" and truly believes what he is saying, is that the guy you really want to be president? If the worst you can say about the guy (who I for the record don't actually like) is that he's changed his stated position a few times, he's in great company. I always thought that 2004-Republican flip-flop gag on Kerry was the most short-sighted and hypocritical things I've ever been forced to endure.

Ron Paul's fault is that he didn't pay attention to what he put his name on. Santorum, Romney and Gingrich's fault is that they are openly hostile to american way of life or they are complete washington insiders willing to drop all their previous statements at the drop of a hat. At least Paul is consistent his entire life. Paul also claims he wants to break the power of banks, but is willing to end any and all laws prohibiting the way they practice business (he'd like to turn the clock back to the good old days of J.P. Morgan). He also believes in a specie currency, which will stratify ownership in this country like no tax hike/cut or spending hike/cut ever could....If Ron Paul has his way, we will all be renting houses from the bank, begging for them to repair our leaky roofs.

Don Corleone

01-08-2012, 00:46

That fact that you don't characterize Santorum was "worse than Obama" is why I attack you. Because see my video above, Santorum pretty much wants all your freedoms to be stripped in favor of a theocracy. This is obvious stuff that takes 20 min of googling and youtubing to find out. He doesn't want all of your freedoms stripped, just the ones he disagrees with. And Obama's all about stripping freedoms he doesn't agree with (what do you think the TSA and Fast & Furious) are about. But in truth, Obama gets more mud because he's actually up there on stage, blundering around. Santorum has had the benefit of sitting on his hands... I really can't say which of the two is worse: A known loser or one that shows all the promise of equaling anybody's incompetence. If you feel a need to attack me for that, be my guest.

EDIT: Also as a young man, I am brimming with too much testosterone. I blame the human condition. Go to a strip club. They're very therapeutic. :devil:

Lemur

01-08-2012, 00:53

In fairness, I think long discussions about how Obama is evil belong in a different thread, but maybe that's just me being a neat freak.

Looks like Canada wants to enter this race: [warning, one f-bomb]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrhA0sEkuaM

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2012, 01:04

So it's okay to to publish racial and homophobic screeds with your own name on the masthead, so long as you have a period of time where you keep it quiet (like when you decide to move onto the National scene)? There were more than 8 newsletters, there were 8 newsletters cited. Again, if I only make 8 public anti-semitic remarks, do I have the right to turn around and wonder why the ADL has an issue with me?
He took responsibility for not reviewing the newsletters when he was retired. he never "kept it quiet". The subject came up when he rejoined Congress in the early 90s (he never moved onto the national scene, he was a Congressman in the 70s and early 80s and retired after losing a Senate run). Again, they were not his statements, if Ron Paul was racist, why has less than 10 newsletters come out racist out of 400+? Who says there are more than 8 newsletters? If there are, why haven't they scrutinized like the rest? There are many more newsletters out there spanning decades, and with many eyes on the situation, if this was systematic racist publishing, where is the racist material when he was actively publishing it while in Congress? Why didn't the racist material start as soon as he left politics? Why just for those few years? Why would he think of getting back into politics if he knowingly published that kind of material?

I was going to ask you this, but thank you for volunteering. So your interest in Paul isn't really in him, it's in making sure Obama goes up against a wing-nut. I suspected as much.
Hehe, I have brought you over to the dark side of personal attacks. Who said I was going to vote for Obama? If I had it my way, Huntsman or Johnson would be my vote. I might just vote for Johnson as Libertarian candidate. Btw, you call him a wing nut because you disagree with his policies?

It depends. If I published "As Don Corleone sees it" as an email, and I let people publish anything they wanted in anonymity, I would absolutely expect to field questions on opinions that were served up. His repeated refusal to answer and prickliness tells me (suspicious of anybody that wants to hold office) that the questions are hitting home.
What hasn't he answered? He took responsibility for it. His answers have been, "no I am not a racist for the 100th time, stop asking me that." Is that so bad? This isn't like the John Edwards scandal here, with blurry photos of Ron Paul reading the racist newsletter himself.

It's not an odd question at all if the person you're asking it about is seeking the office.
It's a disingenuous question. You are throwing emotion at the person by asking them to look in their gut rather than their brain. Big difference between, "why do you support this candidate after what I have shown" and "Is this reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaally what you want?".

And sat next to Nancy Pelosi and stumped for a Carbon Credit Exchange, and now claims he never did. I've got not use for this gasbag.
Nope.
And has some very interesting views on immigration and federal spending. After the last Texas governor to seek the White House, he gets 2-strikes.
I was just using those 3 to make a point. Any defense you have for a candidate can be dismantled with the question, "Are you sure you want someone like him in the White House?" (massive inflection)

I'm not a Santorum fan. He's a social conservative only and has little to no problem with using the power of the federal government to enforce his own personal views. And has no experience balancing budgets. Not qualified.
He is not American. When you trash one of most inspiring phrases of the Declaration of Independence, might as well be saying, "the fascist candidate can't balance a budget, so I don't really care for him." It misses the point. Say what you want about the rest, but Santorum is the most disgusting of trash and is in no way better than Obama even if you disagree with Obama's policies.

If the worst you can say about the guy (who I for the record don't actually like) is that he's changed his stated position a few times, he's in great company. I always thought that 2004-Republican flip-flop gag on Kerry was the most short-sighted and hypocritical things I've ever been forced to endure.
Both Kerry and Romney are political insiders who flip flopped so many times because they are bought and paid for. The Republicans focused on the "weakness" argument in 2004 because they didn't want people paying attention to the extent that money in politics influences politicians. But in all honesty, so much flip flopping indicates massive corruption.

http://youtu.be/EdGUSjd3Tmo

Paul also claims he wants to break the power of banks, but is willing to end any and all laws prohibiting the way they practice business (he'd like to turn the clock back to the good old days of J.P. Morgan). He also believes in a specie currency, which will stratify ownership in this country like no tax hike/cut or spending hike/cut ever could....If Ron Paul has his way, we will all be renting houses from the bank, begging for them to repair our leaky roofs.

The Libertarian view has always been that if you take the government out of the free market, you won't need any regulations. The free market will take care of it. This is not a nutjob position, it's something that has been around for many decades and only fell out of favor in the "conservative arena" in the 80s when Reaganites came to power. I agree about the currency part however.

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2012, 01:17

He doesn't want all of your freedoms stripped, just the ones he disagrees with. And Obama's all about stripping freedoms he doesn't agree with (what do you think the TSA and Fast & Furious) are about. But in truth, Obama gets more mud because he's actually up there on stage, blundering around. Santorum has had the benefit of sitting on his hands... I really can't say which of the two is worse: A known loser or one that shows all the promise of equaling anybody's incompetence. If you feel a need to attack me for that, be my guest.
When he disagrees with the principles of American liberty, he disagrees with all your freedoms. Obama get more mud than he should because he is handed lose-lose situations by Congress. The NDAA Act that has the potential to be abused to allow American civilians to be detained indefinitely was signed by Obama because too much other important things like funding for veterans was included (I mean it is the National Defense Authorization Act for the entire year, so it's essentially the entire military budget). He even gave a signing statement explaining why he signed it, why he will not obey the portions he disagrees with and why he felt it was in the greater good to pass it. But all everyone says is, "Obama signs fascist bill!". At least Obama has willingly said he won't make any decision on the Federal level about gay marriage even though he disagrees with it.

Go to a strip club. They're very therapeutic. :devil:

Went once, got blue balls and an empty wallet. I will stick with the internet as my fun until SOPA comes around.

Don Corleone

01-08-2012, 02:29

Hehe, I have brought you over to the dark side of personal attacks. Who said I was going to vote for Obama? If I had it my way, Huntsman or Johnson would be my vote. I might just vote for Johnson as Libertarian candidate. Btw, you call him a wing nut because you disagree with his policies?

Technically speaking, this is actually a false attribution argument (aka a so-called Strawman argument). Rather than responding to your point directly, I'm exaggerating your position on this point, to make it easier to dismiss the rest of your arguments. As Lemur will attest, this is my kidney-punch of choice. I generally try to avoid the true ad hominem attacks. :creep:

And no, I call him a wingnut because he's a wingnut. Because he wants to put the country on the gold standard, and your effusive defense of him aside, for his racist rants in journals bearing his name.

CountArach

01-08-2012, 04:20

Things have strayed to personal attacks guys. Presidential politics can be heated, please keep things cool.

Tuuvi

01-08-2012, 04:35

Then this: (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/07/us-usa-campaign-huntsman-idUSTRE80601720120107). Sorry, the guy is a bigot. Plain and simple. And he plays to bigots. And I suspect his support comes from bigots.

And what's more, his "let China and Iran do whatever they want" foreign policy smacks of being the real Manchurian candidate. Has anybody checked his contributors?

I think that video was just somebody being a troll, I searched the video on youtube and there was a similar video that was posted a few hours later, only this time it was in support of Santorum instead of Paul.

a completely inoffensive name

01-08-2012, 07:31

Looks like we can put the Ron Paul is racist trope to rest: (SEQUEL TO PREVIOUS VIDEO I POSTED)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE9VXaRYbFI

tibilicus

01-08-2012, 13:56

Why not let China and Iran do what they want? Maybe if we treated them like equal partners they wouldn't hate us?

Why are we so afraid of the rest of the world? The war on terror is like stomping on ants with nuclear boots. Its stupid. Utterly, utterly stupid. It is not our problem, and we should be above this. Worse yet is how the corrupt ones make money off of it! Or have we already forgotten about Haliburton, and Cheney?

The sooner the Neo-Cons and the Dems realize that a successful foreign policy can only be conducted as equals, the sooner this will all be over. What the Chinese do in Asia is not our problem. What the Iranians do in the middle-east is not our problem. It is not our job to intervene, period.

Because, like all nations trying to build hegemony, this can only be done through subjugation of rival powers who pose a threat to said hegemony's interest. The sheer notion Iran poses a threat to the US is laughable. Even if Iran did build a nuke, judging by their nuclear sites it would be highly unstable. They don't even have a missile capable of hitting the US. If Israel being attacked is the concern, why not let them handle their own problem? Iran as a threat to regional peace is also largely laughable. In a conflict Iran doesn't have the military capability to beat the Saudis, the Turks, and certainly not the Israelis. Let Israel handle it and then win the ensuing war. No one would even back Iran in a regional war, Syria, Iran's only ally is kind of occupied and Hezbollah are nothing more than a paramilitary force. The Saudis would probably even join Israel in a war because if there's one thing the Saudis hate more than the Jewish Israelis it's the Shiat Iranians.

But sadly, as realism has left the international sphere, neoliberalism is rampant. War all the time, justified for stupid reasons. perhaps next year we'll attack another state, undermining their state sovereignty in the name of "human rights"? As for the war on terror, the notion that by invading states, we can somehow stop a group of people getting together in a basement to build a bomb is absurd. You cannot crush an ideology through military intervention. And no. WWII and the Cold War doesn't count, said ideology there was state ideology not an ideology of citizens.

Hax

01-08-2012, 16:43

It would be uncharacteristic for the Iranian government to do anything like attack Israel, let alone with a nuclear weapon. And to be honest their influence / control of Hizbullah has been overestimated, really.

rory_20_uk

01-08-2012, 18:24

When there is a problem perceived by the populace, politicians feel the need / are forced to be seen to do something about it, else they seem weak or irrelevant. We see that a lot in the UK where the Conservatives try to devolve power to lower levels, but that then means when something is seen to be wrong the answer would be... to do nothing. Hardly a vote winner. Much better is to say that so much money is being given to a new initiative or some enquiry is to be started.

Similarly, when faced with illegal drugs (for example) it is much easier politically to get some troops wherever and kick Johnny Foreigner's backside than to say that the money is better spent on rehab programmes. Who cares about outcomes? Something Is Being Done and people's interest is very brief.

The USA "likes" Iran as an enemy as it isn't really a threat. Better people get in a lather about them than hostility to China / Russia or even awkward questions about support of Saudi Arabia. The feeling is probably mutual - better for the Iranian leadership that everyone blames someone a nice long way away for everything than starts to question whether the leaders are at fault.

~:smoking:

tibilicus

01-08-2012, 20:46

Noncommunist

01-08-2012, 22:32

So it is okay to prevent alleged attempts at Hegemony by replying with very real and tangible attempts at Hegemony?

http://www.fumbledreturns.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/cmonman.png

But you see, it's our hegemony. And since we're the good guys, it's a good hegemony. Since they're the bad guys, they have a bad hegemony.

Lemur

01-09-2012, 19:25

An interesting essay (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/is-jon-huntsman-the-future-of-the-republican-party/) on Reagan Republicanism, and what it might take to return to it:

Reagan fundamentally understood the difference between campaigning and governing. While he continued Red baiting, he immediately seized the opportunity to work with Mikhail Gorbachev to reduce the threat of thermonuclear war and generally ratchet down tensions between the two superpowers. While he continued flogging Jimmy Carter, Teddy Kennedy, and other Democratic villains in campaign speeches, he did so while working with Tip O’Neil and other Democratic leaders to get as much of his agenda passed as possible—and willingly compromised away the parts that he didn’t have the votes for. [...]

If Romney wins the nomination and loses to Obama—both of which seem likely right now—then we’ll likely see a swing to the right in 2016, as it would reinforce in the nominating electorate the notion that nominating moderates is a recipe for disaster. If Romney wins the nomination and beats Obama, he will, barring tragedy, be the nominee in 2016 and 2020 will proceed along something like the current path, with no lessons being learned.

The only real way to speed up the learning curve—and it might take two presidential cycles even then—would be if Santorum were to get the nomination and then lose in an Electoral College landslide to Obama despite a down economy. Were that to happen, it would be hard for the base to tell themselves that they got beaten because they didn’t get behind a Real Conservative.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

01-09-2012, 20:04

But you see, it's our hegemony. And since we're the good guys, it's a good hegemony. Since they're the bad guys, they have a bad hegemony.

Basically, yes. If America is not on top someone else is, and face with China or America the vast majority would pick America - and those who wouldn't might well wish they had.

Don Corleone

01-09-2012, 22:09

It is hypocritical to go stomping around the globe in order to prevent other nations from stomping around the globe. Its silly, immature, and unsound. And it only continues because people will believe the dumbest stuff from the dumbest people. If I had my way, Bill O'Reilly would be serving out a life-sentance for intentionally misleading millions for the benefit of neo-cons and associated industries.

Iran has threatened to wipe Israel off the map, given half a chance (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/weekinreview/30iran.html?ex=1161230400&en=26f07fc5b7543417&ei=5070). Coyly, they've never threatened to use nuclear weapons, as they claim they're processing weapons grade plutonium for 'medicinal' purposes, but they have said that "nuclear bombs will be going off in the U.S.". They've also threatened Turkey, Qatar, the UAE, and anybody that speaks out against the Syrian crackdown.

But um yeah, they're just like us, so let 'em have the bomb.

Don Corleone

01-09-2012, 22:30

I'm really glad you're not my neighbor.

Don Corleone

01-09-2012, 23:04

Or we'll be a smoldering crater. But if you need help making your case, just consult the wit & wisdom of Sir Neville Chamberlain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neville_chamberlain). He too felt that it was best to just let these wanna-be's do their thing and get it out of their system. How'd that work out for him, by the way?

Don Corleone

01-09-2012, 23:22

George Washington advocated a strong isolationist foreign policy in his farewell speech, I don't disagree with you that's what he said. But he didn't really abide by his own advice. Don't forget, Ohio and Michigan were part of Canada when Washington was in office. The Jay Treaty wasn't a movement towards neutality. Washington very publicly chose to screw the French and favor the English, in exchange for an expansion of American sovereign territory and GB's forgiving of some pre-war debts.

That doesn't sound like "staying out of it" to me.

What's more, the founding fathers had no idea what an ICBM or a nuclear warhead actually were.

If your point is "if we had just left everybody alone all these years, there'd be no hostility towards us", I disagree. If we had just left everybody alone all these years, there'd be a huge wall right through the middle of Kansas and Nebraska. On one side, they'd speak German and Japanese on the other.

P.S. We're going to have to drop this, as we're supposed to be discussing relative merits of GOP nominees....

With approximately 16 hours to go before stepping into a NH voting booth, I'm proclaiming my vote for... Huntsman

Lemur

01-09-2012, 23:53

What's more, the founding fathers had no idea what an ICBM or a nuclear warhead actually were.
It's a long way from fat man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man) and little boy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy) to an ICBM. You know the saying, "This ain't rocket science"? ICBMs are rocket science. Even the most die-hard Iran hawks do not pretend that Iran has the capability to strike the US.*

Huntsman
Good call. If I could wave my magic wand and pick Obama's successor, it would be Huntsman. Sadly, I'm all out of magic wands.

*(Although some of the more unrealistic ones declare that Iran would hand these multi-ton primitive nukes over to terrorists, who would somehow get them to the USA. Beyond the absurdity of any nuclear state handing its crown jewels over to enthusiastic amateurs, I'll leave you to imagine the improbability of this scenario. Pakistan, for example, hates our guts and wants us dead, and actively hosts the most die-hard Western Civilization haters on the globe. And yet they keep their hands firmly on their nukes. Iran is a troll. Don't feed the troll; ignore and isolate him. In this area I think both Bush II and Obama were on the right side of history.)

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2012, 04:39

If your point is "if we had just left everybody alone all these years, there'd be no hostility towards us", I disagree. If we had just left everybody alone all these years, there'd be a huge wall right through the middle of Kansas and Nebraska. On one side, they'd speak German and Japanese on the other.

Ok ACIN, no personal attacks this time.

Ahem. Excuse me Don, but I believe you are mistaken with the quoted statement above. The isolationist argument that GC and others are proposing does not in any way relate to the more extreme isolationism of the 1930s and early 1940s.

In fact you seem to be conflating two completely different situations here. You are bringing up conflicts with Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire which both launched attacks first and gave formal declarations of war against us.

What we are talking about here is that if we had left the middle east alone all these years, we would have indeed not be in this kind of situation.

The Iran situation is completely our fault because:
A. We toppled their peaceful government in the 1950s against the will of the Iranian public.
B. We then put in place a ruler that no one liked which they eventually rioted against just like in Egypt this past year.
C. The Iranian government is fed off of propaganda of American imperialism coming to meddle in the lives of Iranian citizens just as we did in the 1950s. By acting hard and declaring sanctions we only give credence to their propaganda and the lies within it, thus making the situation worse.

Indeed almost all the rouge nations we have always been having problems with are directly caused by our Cold War meddling in their affairs with numerous backlash towards us when the citizens of such foreign country inevitably try to regain control of their own government, usually led by ideological radicals that prey on emotions/nationalism of the citizens. Just as our meddling in Iran gave birth to the modern Iranian nation, so did it give birth to Fidel's Cuba and the Arab Spring revolutions of 2011.

The policy of keeping our presence in the middle east keeping the bad guys in check is a lose-lose scenario. Our presence fuels radical Islamic propaganda across every middle eastern country and because of this the citizens of the middle east will never work with us or our "liberation" efforts despite the best of intentions. Otherwise, Iraq and Afghanistan would be completely modern countries by now. Therefore I find your claim that GC is a modern day Neville is false and to me, it seems absolutely foolish to say that the solution to this long history of backlash from meddling is to meddle some more. ****, and I was so close to no personal attacks.

Lemur

01-10-2012, 05:20

Don C, ACIN, I started up a new Iran thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?139680-Iran-Epic-Troll) just for you guys.

Going back to the GOP primary, here's a provocative piece about why the current GOP is so weak (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/01/the-lizza-list-five-people.html). Assuming you believe the field is unusually poor, as most people do. Whom to smite?

1. George W. Bush

More than anyone else Bush is responsible for decimating the ranks of qualified Republicans who could take on Obama. A successful Presidency can produce a new crop of future Presidential candidates for the party that controls the White House. The vice president and cabinet officials, as well as governors and senators elected over the course of the administration, are historically major sources for a party’s next round of candidates. The Bush years had the opposite effect. It was unthinkable that his vice president would run for higher office and much of his cabinet left Washington tainted by the President’s unpopularity. Moreover, Bush helped sink his party in the 2006 and 2008 elections, thus depleting the ranks of potential Republican candidates for 2012. [...]

2. Michele Bachmann

In hindsight, Bachmann had only one important role in the campaign: in August, she forced Tim Pawlenty, who was potentially Romney’s toughest competitor, out of the race. [...]

3. Cheri Daniels

The wife of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels reportedly halted her husband’s Presidential ambitions on the eve of his entry into the race over concerns about their privacy. (Given what it’s like to run for President, who can blame her?) Candidates often appear stronger when they are sitting on the sidelines, but Daniels did seem to have the potential to consolidate a large bloc of Republicans behind his candidacy. Ideally, a successful Republican candidate will have a mix of three characteristics: electability, conservative credentials, and a respectable resume. Daniels had all three. [...]

4. Barack Obama

Jon Huntsman is making his last stand in New Hampshire, and there is some upward movement for him in the polls. But if he doesn’t defeat Romney there (or at least come in a close second), we can trace Huntsman’s loss to his decision to accept Barack Obama’s offer to be ambassador to China in 2009. That single decision transformed Huntsman from a successful, popular governor from the most conservative state in the country into an employee of Obama, the most despised figure among G.O.P. primary voters. [...]

5. Justice Anthony Kennedy

With so many potential candidates declining to run, and with the decline of the three Republican governors who did end up in the race (Pawlenty, Perry, and Huntsman), Romney was left facing a talk show host (Cain), a defeated senator (Santorum), a former House Speaker who resigned in semi-disgrace (Gingrich), and two of the most extreme members of the House of Representatives (Bachmann and Paul). [...] And yet, given the populist sentiment seizing the Republican party, perhaps 2012 could be the year for one of these far-right outsiders to win. If that doesn’t happen, conservatives can partially thank the Supreme Court and specifically Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court that decided the 2010 Citizens United case. [...]

The court’s decision, championed by conservatives, seems to have shifted the balance of power in the Republican primaries away from grassroots candidates who rely on a wide base of small-dollar donors to the establishment candidate, who benefits from seven-figure ad campaigns with the help of a few hyper-wealthy allies.

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2012, 05:32

#5 is correct. 60-75% of Republican voters are looking for someone else but Romney. Yet it seems like Romney has been declared the winner before NH results are even in. Why?

[Hotlinked, please upload via an image site - T]

Centurion1

01-10-2012, 05:51

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2012, 05:58

Yeah duh hes the parties go to man. Romney is my guy because im not a naive uneducated loon to be able to follow the rest or a troll (gingrich).

I was a pawlenty man until he unfortunately withdrew and in a way lost quite a bit of my respect at folding so pathetically easy.

Trust me obamas will likely dwarf romneys when the REAL campaigning begins for Barry.

The joke this time though is that Romney is guaranteed loss, just like every other candidate. The GOP should be presenting a grassroots, purer conservative (less neoconservative) to convince people that they are reforming themselves into something people want. By putting up Romney, they are only hurting themselves in the long run because they think he "has more of a shot".

a completely inoffensive name

01-10-2012, 06:28

Ok, had to re-do the picture I linked.
https://i.imgur.com/ENQrp.jpg

PanzerJaeger

01-10-2012, 15:34

#5 is correct. 60-75% of Republican voters are looking for someone else but Romney. Yet it seems like Romney has been declared the winner before NH results are even in. Why?

Are you sure? Traditional campaign spending has far outpaced PAC spending so far this primary season. Maybe Romney has been leading because the more conservative vote is fractured, his rivals are weak, he has the strongest ground game, he has worked hard to get the establishment behind him, and/or some other mix of traditional metrics. I think he has been declared the winner before NH because the polling suggests he is a prohibitive front runner there.

[Hotlinked, please upload via an image site - T]

I am not sure why Obama was included in that graphic. It almost gives the casual reader the idea that he is nearly innocent in the super PAC game instead of simply running unopposed. He will have hundreds of millions of dollars in super PAC money backing him in the general.

In other news, I cannot express how dismayed I have been to watch Newt et al attacking Romney's business record like a bunch of democrats. Newt's new 'documentary' looks exactly like the propaganda the UAW puts out. Republicans are supposed to be better than that. We respect business success, we do not envy it. And we certainly do not embrace OWS-type language and tactics. Ronald Reagan did not do it against Bush, despite his moneyed background. This is why the conservative vote is fractured and volatile this year. There is no principled conservative among them.

Also, in some more positive news, it appears that Huntsman is having a bit of a surge. It would say a lot about the US system if, after the circus, the race came down to two serious, qualified candidates. Although, Huntsman does not have the money or the ground game that Romney (or several of the others) have as he moves into South Carolina.

Lemur

01-10-2012, 15:40

Haven't time to read it yet, but there's a very long profile of Romney in Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/02/mitt-romney-201202) today. Pro tip: click the "view as single page" to avoid click-through rage.

-edit-

Also a thought-provoking essay from The Economist (http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/01/republican-nomination-2) on why everyone's favorite sane Republican, John Huntsman, can't get traction:

If you're like me, Mr Huntsman's willingness to set aside partisanship and serve in a Democratic administration [as ambassador to China], in spite of his high political aspirations, argues in favour of his loyalty to the country. But if you're like me you're not a conservative, and you don't really care that much about loyalty. Rock-ribbed conservatives I think see it like this: By agreeing to serve as ambassador to China under Barack Obama, Mr Huntsman picked a side, and it wasn't the side of the conservative tribe. And then he flaked on the Obama administration in order to run for president as a Republican. This how I read Mr [Eric] Erickson's denunciation of Mr Huntsman: "Are you crazy, Huntsman? You want back in? Now? No. Forget about it. You're dead to us."

This leaves Mr Erickson, and millions of like-minded conservatives, in the odd position of preferring even Newt Gingrich, a man who has been disloyal to more than one wife. Indeed, a latter-day Dostoyevsky would be hard-pressed to imagine a nakeder embodiment of ambition than Newt Gingrich. Still, he's an honoured elder of the tribe. Meanwhile, an experienced fiscal-conservative governor with an outstanding grasp of foreign affairs who would stand an outstanding chance of defeating Barack Obama in the general election languishes in the polls.