Republican nominations - Page 17

On August 17 2011 05:33 dreamsmasher wrote:


excellent argument. instead i should listen to the politician who wants to revert us back to the gold standard.

On August 17 2011 04:53 Multifail wrote:
Obama could have been one of the nation's best presidents, the timing for him is just horrible and timing is everything in politics (as in most things), and he knew that going in to it. But for most people, the fact that the US economy is still in trouble is his fault, even though it is more a problem of eight years of stupid combined with the fact that most Americans are just plain uncompetitive in a global economy. $20 bills didn't start growing in their garden a year after he was elected, and for most people that is a failure.

On August 17 2011 05:37 OsoVega wrote:

You should listen to reasoning, whether it be from a book, politician or professor. What you shouldn't do is simply believe any of those sources and think that anyone exposed to the same teaching will agree with you.

On August 17 2011 05:35 Bibdy wrote:


I have. I understand monetary policity, fiscal policy and yada yada yippadeedoo.

Apparently my basic education isn't enough and yours is superior.

Again, either you enlighten me or you're just talking flat out of your ass.

On August 17 2011 05:27 dreamsmasher wrote:


except the fact that almost any undergrad econ student will tell you that most of his thought processes are stupid.

On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
This thread is generally hilarious. It's about the republican nomination process, but the average poster contributing to the discussion is ridiculously outside of the republican mainstream. It's particularly amusing to see all of these democrats/liberals come in here and support someone like Huntsman as if they have any remote intention of voting for him over Obama in a general election. Oh, and Ron Paul's not going anywhere. Yes, he had a good showing at the straw poll, but I don't think that he's ever drawn double-digit support in any real poll (straw polls are dramatically different in what they measure).

Anyway, here's a more accurate reflection of where the republican party presently stands.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13

Perry: 29%
Romney: 18%
Bachmann: 13%

This is about what I would have figured. Romney's a known RINO and will turn off most conservatives. Bachmann rubs too many people the wrong way for one or another (mostly because she gets hammered by the media). That basically leaves Perry as a fairly pure ideological conservative and experienced politician. He's not perfect, but he has the least baggage of all of the candidates in the views of most republicans.

Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it.

On August 17 2011 05:39 xDaunt wrote:
This thread is generally hilarious. It's about the republican nomination process, but the average poster contributing to the discussion is ridiculously outside of the republican mainstream. It's particularly amusing to see all of these democrats/liberals come in here and support someone like Huntsman as if they have any remote intention of voting for him over Obama in a general election. Oh, and Ron Paul's not going anywhere. Yes, he had a good showing at the straw poll, but I don't think that he's ever drawn double-digit support in any real poll (straw polls are dramatically different in what they measure).

Anyway, here's a more accurate reflection of where the republican party presently stands.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13

Perry: 29%
Romney: 18%
Bachmann: 13%

This is about what I would have figured. Romney's a known RINO and will turn off most conservatives. Bachmann rubs too many people the wrong way for one or another (mostly because she gets hammered by the media). That basically leaves Perry as a fairly pure ideological conservative and experienced politician. He's not perfect, but he has the least baggage of all of the candidates in the views of most republicans.

Anyone who thinks that Perry can't beat Obama is fooling themselves. Obama is very beatable right now by most anyone, and he'd lose in a landslide if the election is this November. However, he has a solid year to turn things around. Let's see what he makes of it.

On August 17 2011 05:20 Introvert wrote:
[

Obama spent more in his first year than Bush did in 4 (it might have even been all eight). His spending is what is killing him the most right now. For instance, we CAN'T AFFORD the healthcare plan.

if it's still Bush's fault after four years, then maybe it could be blamed on Clinton? I suppose Carter also was simply "unlucky". Be consistent.

On August 17 2011 05:39 Expurgate wrote:


Like most economic policies, the use of gold to back a currency (as opposed to fiat money) has benefits and drawbacks. It is generally accepted in economics today that floating currency is a substantially stronger system, since it acts as a natural brake/accelerant on the economy, boosting exports when it is low and inhibiting them when it is high. Switching to a gold-backed currency would also mean surrendering the power of monetary policy, particularly if Paul followed through on his pledge to eliminate the Fed.

While the Fed's efficacy in promoting its goals (the Fed, unlike most central banks in the world, has both inflation and unemployment mandates; most central banks have one or the other) is a subject of intensive academic debate, economic research has pretty conclusively shown that an independent central bank is strongly linked to reduced economic instability.

On August 17 2011 05:45 TheGlassface wrote:
How many of these people signed that pledge for no new taxes?
Does anyone here know?

On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:


During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases.

They are all against it.

On August 17 2011 05:47 On_Slaught wrote:


During the Fox News debate each and every one (Perry wasn't there but 1000000% chance he is anti taxes based on what he has said and done) said they wouldn't take a deal that was 10 to 1 Spending cuts to Tax increases.

They are all against it.

On August 17 2011 05:22 Turenne wrote:


Proof please.