As I said. I am glad that you are able to be happy.Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
As I said. I am glad that you are able to be happy.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
The GOP is fighting to define their "core", social vs. economic conservatism. IMO it's a shame they start with religious-based values in their "winnowing", and let that dominate their narrative. It's a huge turn-off for Independents and swing voters, not to mention the youth vote. I do think it's a bit 'scary' when people are defined (and courted) as Evangelicals, Catholics, Southern Baptists or whatnot...and religious leaders hold conventions to figure out which candidate to support and endorse, encouraging their congregations to vote their religions....while being careful not to do it from the pulpit (and lose their tax exempt status).
The best thing the GOP could do is fracture itself, and split into two distinct "conservative" parties. Do every voter a favor and be clear about what their conservatism actually means; religious or economic.
I think Gingrich would be a shitty President. For those who think Obama is too aloof, or an "academic elite", Gingrich would add an arrogance and polarity of Us vs Them that would take new heights (or race to the bottom). Romney would be less shitty than Gingrich even though he's considered out of touch with 'real people in the real economy, and an "economic elite".
Romney is among the top 3,000 wealth owners in a nation of over 300 million people. He's a financial engineer and master marketer, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, at a time when the rich easily get richer by using broken financial markets....and the middle class is shrinking. Because he's shown he can be "moderate" and govern for the circumstances (aka RomneyCare in MASS), that's also his (core no-core) problem according to the GOP Values Voters.
But we'll just let the Newtron bombs bury Romney, and re-elect Obama.
Hate to quote Ann Coulter, but if Romney wins the GOP nomination, it's a sure bet for Obama's re-election.
Glad to know that you think higher of Coulter's opinions than all existing polling data.
Hope is the denial of reality
Donkey-cherry-picking post?You should already know I'm not a fan of either Coulter, let alone polls. I don't conflate their "data" with anything but a snap-shot in time. Polls can only measure certain things, and even then not necessarily very well, depending on the questions asked/numbers of people polled/who and how they're polled.
And why would anyone with even the slightest knowledge of politics think that the least extremist of the Republican candidates (barring Huntsman, who has no shot of winning the primary), who also happens to have the largest operations on the ground and the most resources from those candidates, is the candidate with no shot at winning? Oh right, punditry BS.
Hope is the denial of reality
It's called having an OPINION, Dr. Loki. Based on everything I've read, the people I've talked with, the debates I've followed....along with my perceptions (which include, obviously, a degree of subjectiveness).
Republicans may "fall in line" and vote by party, or follow what McCain's mother did and hold their nose while voting for Romney, but that would merely get him the GOP party nomination. It's still up for grabs, though. Marginalizing Ron Paul voters or Tea Partiers <by calling them "crazies"> seems effective, but ignores how religious zealots can be just as "crazy". Or would that be the "crazed" and fissured GOP that can't decide on what to do, or agree on...well, pretty much anything? Are they afraid of a brokered Republican convention more than theyfearhate Obama?
It's all punditry and psychology at this point, yet you dismiss both. While also proclaiming Huntsman has no shot....
Maybe you should become better informed, so your opinion is actually based on some facts.
Hope is the denial of reality
Ah, using the old Ignorance strategy to dismiss an Opinion. That's part of punditry and propaganda.
Nah, temporary trends mean folks like Huckabee, Palin, O'Donnell, Bachmann, Cain. That's just from the "conservative base". They "trend" popular because they spark a flash-interest, almost like Reality TV shows. Most opinion polls reflect that Americans have the attention span of a gnat, and are predominantly driven by new and shiny things. Gnats vs Moths isn't the best way to elect leaders, but it's good for entertainment value.
This reminded me of this video I saw recently,don't take it personalHmm. I just don't think Romney ever had a serious chance to trounce in Iowa - he doesn't work well with evangelical social conservatives, who make up a large proportion of caucus-goers in the Iowa GOP.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/us...efense.html?hp
It's amusing to see Gingrich and Perry get so desperate that they're attacking Romney for being pro-free market.
Hope is the denial of reality
???
Birth control is 'unnatural'. Which is good as natural isn't good all or necessarily even most of the time, but why that's crazy is beyond me?
Even I find Paul extreme for a right-winger, and I consider myself to be an extreme right-winger.Ah, using the old Ignorance strategy to dismiss an Opinion. That's part of punditry and propaganda.Paul had no chance of gaining support five years ago. Written off as appealing to the "lunatic fringe", a phenomenal fluke dismissed as a temporary trend. Funny how he's gained more supporters since then, huh. Just more ignorant people?
I think a lot of people who support Paul would hate many of his policies. I also think Paul has shown no chance of gaining any serious level of support either five year ago or now. I think there is as much chance of a snowball surviving in hell [which doesn't even exist] as there is of Paul winning the nomination let alone the Presidency. It'd be a tremendous shock if he even won a Primary.
Right now although I supported Obama last time I am [as usual for my US Presidential picks it seems] disappointed in him. I would be supporting Romney right now if I was an American, and the more I hear of his business background the more I think he is exactly what the US and the world economy needs.
Last edited by RandBlade; 01-10-2012 at 07:39 PM.
Paul's actually a doctor, which I imagine netted him more money than his government paycheck. The general point stands though: Paul has no shot in hell of winning the primary. He's little more than a protest vote, which means his support will only dwindle as two frontrunners emerge (assuming the fundies unite before it's too late).
Hope is the denial of reality
How could someone extremely right wing support Obama?
As I recall, it was some combination of McCain being on his deathbed and Obama being black. Both incredibly good reasons.
Hope is the denial of reality
McCain being on his deathbed and batshit crazy Palin being the one he picked to be a heartbeat from the Presidency.
A lot of UK Conservatives liked the idea of Obama. I do not want him to get re-elected based on his performance to date (spend, spend, spend) but not exactly enamored with the alternatives.
A lot of UK Conservatives were stupid and either had no idea what Obama's platform was or ignored it for the sake of historic novelty. Obama is the most left-wing president since Carter, and he lacked the executive experience to get things done. How any right-winger could have supported him for rational reasons is beyond me.
I should also note that McCain is still very much alive and not in any danger of kicking the bucket.
Hope is the denial of reality
Lets mark that up to not pushing the stress and pressures of running a country on him
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
As OG says, he has also NOT been in the Oval Office.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
And Romney gets NH...or should that be a new thread?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Please no!
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
You can never prove a negative. Do we have any specific evidence that more stress would kill him? Is he even on the verge of getting seriously ill?
Hope is the denial of reality
I think you missed the point that I was making fun of you for including the idea that McCain would have survived a stint as president. You have no stronger position for than I do against.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I started following US politics during Bush (some planes flew into some buildings starting the interest) but I've heard from pretty right-wing people during that time how Clinton was more left than Carter. This was before the Socialist Stalinist Obama was elected.
Any motivation for deciding who is/was more left wing? I think it's not taxation, since Obama tried to get taxation back to Clinton-era levels (or so I have been told).
Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 01-11-2012 at 02:33 PM.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Why not be against Obama due to him being a long-term smoker? Wouldn't want a president dealing with cancer.
Hope is the denial of reality
I actually did take part is a discussion about Biden running the countryThat was a far less scary AR compared to Palin.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I wasn't trying to prove a negative, I was referencing an easily observable phenomenon, that serving as President takes a visible toll on people. I believe historical records will also back up that you are more likely to die while in that position than in most other job positions in the country. And any of us not adhering strictly to predestination will say there's decent evidence that no person is born with a strictly allotted time on this Earth regardless of their activities though we cannot of course prove that. conclusively.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
So Romney's got a decent sized lead in South Carolina. The Gingrich and Santorum campaigns appear to be devouring each other; splitting the far right vote. Same goes for in the national polls. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out; I'd expect whichever one of those two drops out to endorse the other over Romney. Right now Romney seems pretty secure in his place as front-runner. He has as many delegates as the next four candidates combined (Paul, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, in that order).
Because Santorum's views on birth control (and sex in general) are over-the-top conservative---that states should be able to ban birth control, overturning Roe v Wade, Constitutional amendments to define embryos as people, and marriage between one man/one woman. He seems to be with the religious "fundies" who don't want public schools teaching sex ed or anything but abstinence, according to Roman Catholic doctrine. That's why.
I was replying to Loki (who wrongly predicted years ago that the Ron Paul Revolution "would go nowhere") while telling me to get more informed on polls.Even I find Paul extreme for a right-winger, and I consider myself to be an extreme right-winger....snip
Punditry, huh. Romney is posing it that way---as "class envy", anti-capitalism, anti-free market, anti-American, etc. He's doing that to rally Republicans and paint Obama (or any Democrat) as the enemy of business and SSSocialists. Funny, when other Republicans challenge Romney's claims to being a big "job creator" as a venture capitalist, he flips it on them as being bad Republicans, and polarizes the GOP even more.
He figured he could run on his private sector successes, hoping his public record (individual health insurance mandate, employment, education in MASS) would be put on the back burner. Oops.
The delegate count at this point is meaningless, since the GOP changed their allocation system from winner-gets-all to proportional. The Romney victories are more of a signal about Romney's odds of carrying the nomination, making that victory look more inevitable with every primary he wins. But if the fundies were to unite around one candidate (hell, even if they unite around two candidates), this race would be far from over.
Hope is the denial of reality
All that is extreme and stupid but nine of it makes birth control natural. Personally I'd consider siphillis more natural to Durex but I know which I'd rather have.
Ron Paul is going nowhere. He's certainly not going to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue.I was replying to Loki (who wrongly predicted years ago that the Ron Paul Revolution "would go nowhere") while telling me to get more informed on polls.
He's right. This is the problem with primaries.Punditry, huh. Romney is posing it that way---as "class envy", anti-capitalism, anti-free market, anti-American, etc. He's doing that to rally Republicans and paint Obama (or any Democrat) as the enemy of business and SSSocialists. Funny, when other Republicans challenge Romney's claims to being a big "job creator" as a venture capitalist, he flips it on them as being bad Republicans, and polarizes the GOP even more.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
