|
On January 16 2012 11:30 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:29 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:28 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:27 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:25 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:21 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 16 2012 10:52 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 10:41 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:36 Zalithian wrote:
[quote]
My point is the same. Obama is a liar. His hope and change have been a joke. Had he brought the troops home years ago, I'm pretty confident that the money saved would be more than enough to NOT cut educational funding. You know he wants to and has always wanted to bring them home, right? It's like Obama is sitting in his office happy that the war is still going on. Here's the thing though: Senate is controlled by the GOP, which does not the war to end. Additionally, his generals and advisers aren't so keen on ending the war either. Even if Ron Paul won the presidency he would not be able to immediate bring all the troops home. There are some uncomfortable realities that presidents have to deal with regarding these things. This is why is best to not start a war in the first place, because ending it is extremely dangerous. All I can say is I'm glad Iraq is over. That said, I do wish Obama had ended the Afghanistan War. The thing is, I know for a fact no Republican would end the war and Ron Paul's position on the war is pretty much the same as Obama's was, and I don't really think Ron Paul will somehow be able to change everyone's minds any more than Obama can. But yes, Obama did not hold his word and do everything he said he would. It's a shame. But keep in mind no president has really done so, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone this time around is any different. I'm sorry, but RP is just as idealistic as Obama was (just with different ideals) and if he ever got the office, he'd be stuck in the same position with gridlock and advisers going against him. And what did you mean when you said your point was the same? All I was replying to you for was to let you know that you had the facts wrong on the Pell Grants thing. Now I'm confused... I don't have my facts wrong. Obama did indeed agree to cut Pell Grant funding, yes? It's not really relevant whether or not he claims he wanted to. He also "claimed" he didn't want to sign the NDAA, but he still did. Education should be a priority, and I expected that Obama would have found a way to avoid the cut. Answer me this. How much did Obama cut the Military Budget by during his term? This just shows how clueless you are about how politics work. You need to take a dose of reality and realize that politicians have to make compromises like this in order to get anything done at all. I'm not clueless about politics. It's all about the money, just like most everything else. Elaborate? This doesn't really make any sense... One word: Lobbying. Theoretically it would work great, but in reality it ends up failing pretty poorly and benefiting those with the deepest pockets. See: SOPA. Specifically the SOPA hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. What does that have to do with Pell Grants? Stop randomly changing the subject every time you post dude. I'm saying money runs the government. It's not that hard to piece together, dude. I think Obama has been a complete flop as president. I've stated several reasons for this already. Obviously a few people here disagree, and as I stated before it's off topic as this thread is about republicans, so I'll discontinue. Sorry! You edited your post and I didn't see it! Scroll up. And yeah I'll agree that Obama has been somewhat of a flop. He hasn't done everything he said he would and he's done some things his voters would not have wanted him to do. That said, how could anyone side with the Republicans when it comes down to the two sides? All the things you've attacked Obama for are 10 times worse on the Republican side. Obama ended one war, but not both. The GOP didn't even want to end either war and accused Obama of being a coward when he did. The situation with Pell Grants, the NDAA, etc. are all similar. I can completely understand being against Obama for what he's done, but the problem is the 2012 election is not Obama vs another Democrat, it's Obama vs a Republican.
Well, I think all the Republicans are shit too, besides Ron Paul. I see most republicans as similar to Obama. Obviously I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I respect him for his consistency and willingness to stand up for freedom. I think Non-Interventionism is a better policy than what we currenly have, and it's not isolationism. I do know Ron Paul would get rid of a lot of things, but he would still protect America at it's borders. Would Ron Paul make a good president? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see Obama or any of the other Republicans as anything but the status quo. It seems every year people are sick of the presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, but they keep voting for the exact same people.
|
On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman.
Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate.
|
|
|
On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though.
Why would it be surprising that Huntsman would choose to endorse Romney? They're almost identical candidates, right down to being Mormon. Also, Romney is the clear frontrunner, so if Huntsman is gunning for cabinet appointment or another ambassadorship, now's the time to curry favor.
|
Huntsman dropped out today to take attention away from the Tom Davis endorsement of Ron Paul (probably  ).
|
On January 16 2012 11:38 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:30 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:29 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:28 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:27 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:25 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:21 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 16 2012 10:52 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 10:41 hmunkey wrote:
[quote]
You know he wants to and has always wanted to bring them home, right? It's like Obama is sitting in his office happy that the war is still going on.
Here's the thing though: Senate is controlled by the GOP, which does not the war to end. Additionally, his generals and advisers aren't so keen on ending the war either.
Even if Ron Paul won the presidency he would not be able to immediate bring all the troops home. There are some uncomfortable realities that presidents have to deal with regarding these things. This is why is best to not start a war in the first place, because ending it is extremely dangerous.
All I can say is I'm glad Iraq is over. That said, I do wish Obama had ended the Afghanistan War. The thing is, I know for a fact no Republican would end the war and Ron Paul's position on the war is pretty much the same as Obama's was, and I don't really think Ron Paul will somehow be able to change everyone's minds any more than Obama can.
But yes, Obama did not hold his word and do everything he said he would. It's a shame. But keep in mind no president has really done so, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone this time around is any different. I'm sorry, but RP is just as idealistic as Obama was (just with different ideals) and if he ever got the office, he'd be stuck in the same position with gridlock and advisers going against him.
And what did you mean when you said your point was the same? All I was replying to you for was to let you know that you had the facts wrong on the Pell Grants thing.
Now I'm confused... I don't have my facts wrong. Obama did indeed agree to cut Pell Grant funding, yes? It's not really relevant whether or not he claims he wanted to. He also "claimed" he didn't want to sign the NDAA, but he still did. Education should be a priority, and I expected that Obama would have found a way to avoid the cut. Answer me this. How much did Obama cut the Military Budget by during his term? This just shows how clueless you are about how politics work. You need to take a dose of reality and realize that politicians have to make compromises like this in order to get anything done at all. I'm not clueless about politics. It's all about the money, just like most everything else. Elaborate? This doesn't really make any sense... One word: Lobbying. Theoretically it would work great, but in reality it ends up failing pretty poorly and benefiting those with the deepest pockets. See: SOPA. Specifically the SOPA hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. What does that have to do with Pell Grants? Stop randomly changing the subject every time you post dude. I'm saying money runs the government. It's not that hard to piece together, dude. I think Obama has been a complete flop as president. I've stated several reasons for this already. Obviously a few people here disagree, and as I stated before it's off topic as this thread is about republicans, so I'll discontinue. Sorry! You edited your post and I didn't see it! Scroll up. And yeah I'll agree that Obama has been somewhat of a flop. He hasn't done everything he said he would and he's done some things his voters would not have wanted him to do. That said, how could anyone side with the Republicans when it comes down to the two sides? All the things you've attacked Obama for are 10 times worse on the Republican side. Obama ended one war, but not both. The GOP didn't even want to end either war and accused Obama of being a coward when he did. The situation with Pell Grants, the NDAA, etc. are all similar. I can completely understand being against Obama for what he's done, but the problem is the 2012 election is not Obama vs another Democrat, it's Obama vs a Republican. Well, I think all the Republicans are shit too, besides Ron Paul. I see most republicans as similar to Obama. Obviously I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I respect him for his consistency and willingness to stand up for freedom. I think Non-Interventionism is a better policy than what we currenly have, and it's not isolationism. I do know Ron Paul would get rid of a lot of things, but he would still protect America at it's borders. Would Ron Paul make a good president? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see Obama or any of the other Republicans as anything but the status quo. It seems every year people are sick of the presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, but they keep voting for the exact same people.
I hear this a lot but it's completely untrue. How can someone think Obama and Bush are the same? Or Bush and Clinton?
There have been some pretty big changes since 2008 in case you didn't notice. Remember how the GOP made a huge fuss every time something changed?
|
On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate.
Ha yes he's full of shit right now, but that's how all primaries are. Right now he's trying to appeal to evangelicals, but when the general election comes around watch him suddenly become moderate to court that huge mass of independents (who don't really vote in primaries).
|
On January 16 2012 11:14 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:11 aksfjh wrote:On January 16 2012 10:52 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 10:41 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:36 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 10:31 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:30 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 10:18 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 10:11 gold_ wrote:On January 16 2012 10:05 hmunkey wrote:
You guys are aware Obama hasn't even started a donation drive yet, right? When Obama kicks his campaign off in a few months, he'll start soliciting individual donors in much larger numbers than Paul has so far if the last election was any indication. And that image is fairly biased since it doesn't show the individual citizens' total for either of the other two.
Oh, and that image isn't even accurate. Someone added their own fake donations in to make it look better for Paul. First, DNC has been running donation drives for Obama. Second, is there proof that your claim of fake donations added is true? I find it hard to believe people are coming here defending Obama, what hope and change has he brought to you guys? 4.2 trillion in debt? I just read the DNC has raised a 220$ million "war chest" for Obama's re-election campaign, then the next article was Obama wants to raise the debt limit by 1.2 trillion. If Obama cared more about his country than just being re-elected he would issue a huge press conference and donate at least half to to government to pay down the debt. What American would not love him for doing that? That would be a massively generous show of commitment, no? You left out the part where I linked the actual table so you could see my proof. Come on bro, my post explicitly had it in there. Here it is: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012Note the following quote from the page: These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates Here is a comparison where you can see what percent is from individuals: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/index.phpNote that Obama has the same percent as Paul. Here's the Obama-specific page: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00009638&cycle=2012Note how several of the donors on the Paul propaganda are missing, namely the banks. Someone added big banks and other garbage to make the other candidates look bad. And all that aside, keep in mind these companies donate to the candidates they expect to win. No one wants to donate money to a losing candidate. If RP had the lead in polling and took first in Iowa/NH, he would have received quite a few corporate donations. He didn't though and no one really expects him to win, so they're holding off on their donations for now. Also, what's with the donation thing? Are you just grasping for ways to attack Obama? Obviously he won't donate the money he raised for his campaign because people gave it to him for his campaign... If I give someone money to spend on their campaign, I expect them to use it on their campaign. If I wanted to donate to the government I'd do it myself. Anyway, that poster was falsified propaganda meant to make Ron Paul look good in comparison but someone deliberately altered the actual tables to do so. Sorry to ruin the circlejerk though. On January 16 2012 10:14 Zalithian wrote:
I agree with gold here. Obama has been proven to be a liar with no hope or change, and I recently found out he cut summer pell grants already. Ridiculous. But off topic as this is the republican nominations thread. You know he didn't want to cut the grants and was actually engaged in a bitter fight with the Republicans over the issue, right? The GOP wanted to cut them for months now in even more severe ways and the cut that went though last months was a compromise so the Republicans would agree to the spending deal. Facts man, they're nice. How about the NDAA he promised to veto? Or bringing the troops home, 4 years ago? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p12cAclNCRUFacts man. They are nice. Obama is a liar who hasn't lived up to his promises at all. I'm sure they could have cut other things besides education. Hey, I bet if Obama brought the troops home like he promised, they wouldn't have had to cut education funding! Fancy that. ?? What are you talking about? I never claimed any of that was true nor did I say it was a fact. I was just replying to you since you were attacking him for doing something every Republican candidate including (actually, especially) Ron Paul would've done. And to top it off, it was something he didn't even want to do but was forced into. My point is the same. Obama is a liar. His hope and change have been a joke. Had he brought the troops home years ago, I'm pretty confident that the money saved would be more than enough to NOT cut educational funding. You know he wants to and has always wanted to bring them home, right? It's like Obama is sitting in his office happy that the war is still going on. Here's the thing though: Senate is controlled by the GOP, which does not the war to end. Additionally, his generals and advisers aren't so keen on ending the war either. Even if Ron Paul won the presidency he would not be able to immediate bring all the troops home. There are some uncomfortable realities that presidents have to deal with regarding these things. This is why is best to not start a war in the first place, because ending it is extremely dangerous. All I can say is I'm glad Iraq is over. That said, I do wish Obama had ended the Afghanistan War. The thing is, I know for a fact no Republican would end the war and Ron Paul's position on the war is pretty much the same as Obama's was, and I don't really think Ron Paul will somehow be able to change everyone's minds any more than Obama can. But yes, Obama did not hold his word and do everything he said he would. It's a shame. But keep in mind no president has really done so, and I have absolutely no reason to believe anyone this time around is any different. I'm sorry, but RP is just as idealistic as Obama was (just with different ideals) and if he ever got the office, he'd be stuck in the same position with gridlock and advisers going against him. And what did you mean when you said your point was the same? All I was replying to you for was to let you know that you had the facts wrong on the Pell Grants thing. Now I'm confused... I don't have my facts wrong. Obama did indeed agree to cut Pell Grant funding, yes? It's not really relevant whether or not he claims he wanted to. He also "claimed" he didn't want to sign the NDAA, but he still did. Education should be a priority, and I expected that Obama would have found a way to avoid the cut. Answer me this. How much did Obama cut the Military Budget by during his term? "Ugh! I can't believe politicians have to make compromises that disagree with my views! Anybody that does so certainly doesn't care about me and is a liar!" Welcome to the real world. The best programs and legislation have come out of compromise, even if it did sacrifice the interests of some party. Again, how much did this "Nobel Peace Prize winner" cut the military budget by? "Current military spending is higher than at any time in our entire history. The Pentagon budget for 2010 was $693 billion—more than all other discretionary spending programs combined. That’s nearly half of all military spending on earth. Military spending has doubled over the past decade when adjusted for inflation. Under President Bush, military spending averaged 3.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product. It has increased to 4.9 percent—a full percentage point higher under President Obama." SourceHow about that extra 4 trillion dollars in national debt under Obama? That's change I can believe in. Source
It is true that there was an extra 4 trillion dollars in debt from Obama.
So where'd it come from?
1.4 trillion from lower GDP, from Great Recession (includes extension of Bush tax cuts)
1.4 trillion increase in Income Security measures, for the people who got shafted by the Great Recession (which was eminently not their fault)
0.4 trillion in Medicaid increase, since more people got pushed into poverty
Obama Stimulus: 787 billion (All of the spending is up online at recovery.gov. Find where the money is wasted.)
Other: ~200 billion. Some from rising Medicare costs, baby boomer generation retiring, increase in military costs, etc.
Affordable Care Act is paid for (source: CBO estimates, evidence from Massachussetts, and comparison with Netherlands (which has a similar model but with more government involvement).
Source: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables[1].pdf
All in all, there is only one actual instance of a spending surge under Obama, which by the way contained 275 billion dollars in tax cuts, and House Republicans have blocked his proposals to reduce the deficit: (see May response to Ryan Plan, Grand Bargain, Buffet Rule)
Obama's proposal: 4 trillion dollars in deficit reduction; from Medicare/Social Security cuts (compromise with Republicans), rising revenue (1:4 tax to spending increase ratio, the tax burden coming from a small surcharge on personal revenue exceeding 1 million), winding down wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Source: Grand Bargain of July/August.
Why, what would you do instead?
Edit: This is only in response to the second part of the national debt. As for defense cuts, its true that Obama hasn't done anything major. Costs have risen due to an escalation in Afghanistan, which is basically getting the job done like it should have been, a continuation in Iraq (which is now over), rising personnel maintenance / veteran health care costs, and just the fact military costs are just plain getting more expensive, a trend that has nothing to do with Obama but certainly continued under him. Source.
But there will probably be a big cut coming, and that's when the supercommittee fails.
|
On January 16 2012 11:46 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:38 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:30 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:29 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:28 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:27 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:25 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:21 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On January 16 2012 10:52 Zalithian wrote:
[quote]
I don't have my facts wrong. Obama did indeed agree to cut Pell Grant funding, yes? It's not really relevant whether or not he claims he wanted to. He also "claimed" he didn't want to sign the NDAA, but he still did. Education should be a priority, and I expected that Obama would have found a way to avoid the cut. Answer me this. How much did Obama cut the Military Budget by during his term?
This just shows how clueless you are about how politics work. You need to take a dose of reality and realize that politicians have to make compromises like this in order to get anything done at all. I'm not clueless about politics. It's all about the money, just like most everything else. Elaborate? This doesn't really make any sense... One word: Lobbying. Theoretically it would work great, but in reality it ends up failing pretty poorly and benefiting those with the deepest pockets. See: SOPA. Specifically the SOPA hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. What does that have to do with Pell Grants? Stop randomly changing the subject every time you post dude. I'm saying money runs the government. It's not that hard to piece together, dude. I think Obama has been a complete flop as president. I've stated several reasons for this already. Obviously a few people here disagree, and as I stated before it's off topic as this thread is about republicans, so I'll discontinue. Sorry! You edited your post and I didn't see it! Scroll up. And yeah I'll agree that Obama has been somewhat of a flop. He hasn't done everything he said he would and he's done some things his voters would not have wanted him to do. That said, how could anyone side with the Republicans when it comes down to the two sides? All the things you've attacked Obama for are 10 times worse on the Republican side. Obama ended one war, but not both. The GOP didn't even want to end either war and accused Obama of being a coward when he did. The situation with Pell Grants, the NDAA, etc. are all similar. I can completely understand being against Obama for what he's done, but the problem is the 2012 election is not Obama vs another Democrat, it's Obama vs a Republican. Well, I think all the Republicans are shit too, besides Ron Paul. I see most republicans as similar to Obama. Obviously I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I respect him for his consistency and willingness to stand up for freedom. I think Non-Interventionism is a better policy than what we currenly have, and it's not isolationism. I do know Ron Paul would get rid of a lot of things, but he would still protect America at it's borders. Would Ron Paul make a good president? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see Obama or any of the other Republicans as anything but the status quo. It seems every year people are sick of the presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, but they keep voting for the exact same people. I hear this a lot but it's completely untrue. How can someone think Obama and Bush are the same? Or Bush and Clinton? There have been some pretty big changes since 2008 in case you didn't notice. Remember how the GOP made a huge fuss every time something changed?
Okay guys, nevermind. Obama is the best president ever, and Romney will be great.
|
On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate.
He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination 
|
On January 16 2012 11:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate. He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination
He's getting lucky though, since the only social conservative left is Santorum. As soon as Santorum is gone he can go back to being moderate since none of his opponents can really target evangelicals in any substantive way.
|
On January 16 2012 11:53 Zalithian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:46 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:30 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:29 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:28 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:27 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:25 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:21 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
This just shows how clueless you are about how politics work. You need to take a dose of reality and realize that politicians have to make compromises like this in order to get anything done at all. I'm not clueless about politics. It's all about the money, just like most everything else. Elaborate? This doesn't really make any sense... One word: Lobbying. Theoretically it would work great, but in reality it ends up failing pretty poorly and benefiting those with the deepest pockets. See: SOPA. Specifically the SOPA hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. What does that have to do with Pell Grants? Stop randomly changing the subject every time you post dude. I'm saying money runs the government. It's not that hard to piece together, dude. I think Obama has been a complete flop as president. I've stated several reasons for this already. Obviously a few people here disagree, and as I stated before it's off topic as this thread is about republicans, so I'll discontinue. Sorry! You edited your post and I didn't see it! Scroll up. And yeah I'll agree that Obama has been somewhat of a flop. He hasn't done everything he said he would and he's done some things his voters would not have wanted him to do. That said, how could anyone side with the Republicans when it comes down to the two sides? All the things you've attacked Obama for are 10 times worse on the Republican side. Obama ended one war, but not both. The GOP didn't even want to end either war and accused Obama of being a coward when he did. The situation with Pell Grants, the NDAA, etc. are all similar. I can completely understand being against Obama for what he's done, but the problem is the 2012 election is not Obama vs another Democrat, it's Obama vs a Republican. Well, I think all the Republicans are shit too, besides Ron Paul. I see most republicans as similar to Obama. Obviously I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I respect him for his consistency and willingness to stand up for freedom. I think Non-Interventionism is a better policy than what we currenly have, and it's not isolationism. I do know Ron Paul would get rid of a lot of things, but he would still protect America at it's borders. Would Ron Paul make a good president? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see Obama or any of the other Republicans as anything but the status quo. It seems every year people are sick of the presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, but they keep voting for the exact same people. I hear this a lot but it's completely untrue. How can someone think Obama and Bush are the same? Or Bush and Clinton? There have been some pretty big changes since 2008 in case you didn't notice. Remember how the GOP made a huge fuss every time something changed? Okay guys, nevermind. Obama is the best president ever, and Romney will be great.
Nice edit. And who's exactly is calling Obama the best president ever?
|
Incidentally, this was the post Zalithian wrote before he deleted it. It really makes you wonder...
On January 16 2012 11:53 Zalithian wrote:
Obama increased the deficit by 4 trillion dollars so far during his presidency, and if re-elected would DOUBLE the deficit by Bush Jr on this pace. Obama increased the military budget, and continued the wars by Bush Jr. He also signed the NDAA (stripping American's of more civil liberties when he said he wouldn't). Seems kinda similar on those fronts.
|
On January 16 2012 11:58 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:53 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:46 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:30 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:29 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:28 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:27 Zalithian wrote:On January 16 2012 11:25 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:21 Zalithian wrote:
[quote]
I'm not clueless about politics. It's all about the money, just like most everything else.
Elaborate? This doesn't really make any sense... One word: Lobbying. Theoretically it would work great, but in reality it ends up failing pretty poorly and benefiting those with the deepest pockets. See: SOPA. Specifically the SOPA hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. What does that have to do with Pell Grants? Stop randomly changing the subject every time you post dude. I'm saying money runs the government. It's not that hard to piece together, dude. I think Obama has been a complete flop as president. I've stated several reasons for this already. Obviously a few people here disagree, and as I stated before it's off topic as this thread is about republicans, so I'll discontinue. Sorry! You edited your post and I didn't see it! Scroll up. And yeah I'll agree that Obama has been somewhat of a flop. He hasn't done everything he said he would and he's done some things his voters would not have wanted him to do. That said, how could anyone side with the Republicans when it comes down to the two sides? All the things you've attacked Obama for are 10 times worse on the Republican side. Obama ended one war, but not both. The GOP didn't even want to end either war and accused Obama of being a coward when he did. The situation with Pell Grants, the NDAA, etc. are all similar. I can completely understand being against Obama for what he's done, but the problem is the 2012 election is not Obama vs another Democrat, it's Obama vs a Republican. Well, I think all the Republicans are shit too, besides Ron Paul. I see most republicans as similar to Obama. Obviously I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I respect him for his consistency and willingness to stand up for freedom. I think Non-Interventionism is a better policy than what we currenly have, and it's not isolationism. I do know Ron Paul would get rid of a lot of things, but he would still protect America at it's borders. Would Ron Paul make a good president? Maybe, maybe not, but I don't see Obama or any of the other Republicans as anything but the status quo. It seems every year people are sick of the presidents, whether they be Republican or Democrat, but they keep voting for the exact same people. I hear this a lot but it's completely untrue. How can someone think Obama and Bush are the same? Or Bush and Clinton? There have been some pretty big changes since 2008 in case you didn't notice. Remember how the GOP made a huge fuss every time something changed? Okay guys, nevermind. Obama is the best president ever, and Romney will be great. Nice edit. And who's exactly is calling Obama the best president ever?
For a lot of people including me he was a great disappointment and it is sad that even after all that, he is still the best candidate. But such is politics.
|
On January 16 2012 11:58 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:54 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate. He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination He's getting lucky though, since the only social conservative left is Santorum. As soon as Santorum is gone he can go back to being moderate since none of his opponents can really target evangelicals in any substantive way.
The problem with Santorum is that he has the stink of being a Bush-type, compassionate conservative (ie, a big government conservative). This is going to turn off any republican who prioritizes fiscal/economic issues over social issues. Also, Romney is socially conservative enough to get a lot of the socially conservative vote anyway.
|
On January 16 2012 12:03 xDaunt wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/imageuploader/ Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:58 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:54 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate. He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination He's getting lucky though, since the only social conservative left is Santorum. As soon as Santorum is gone he can go back to being moderate since none of his opponents can really target evangelicals in any substantive way. The problem with Santorum is that he has the stink of being a Bush-type, compassionate conservative (ie, a big government conservative). This is going to turn off any republican who prioritizes fiscal/economic issues over social issues. Also, Romney is socially conservative enough to get a lot of the socially conservative vote anyway.
You mean the newest version of Romney is socially conservative enough. Of course, he'll probably govern that way; he's going to be gunning for term 2 the instant he steps foot in office (should he win the election).
|
On January 16 2012 12:03 xDaunt wrote:
The problem with Santorum is that he has the stink of being a Bush-type, compassionate conservative (ie, a big government conservative). This is going to turn off any republican who prioritizes fiscal/economic issues over social issues.
Of course, Romney's going to have to explain why he went compassionate conservative in Massachusetts but will not do the same for America. MA's healthcare comes to mind. It's hard to tell who'd be bigger government conservative.
If you're going by the tax plans and buy into less taxes=less government, Santorum will be far smaller-government than Romney.
|
On January 16 2012 12:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 11:58 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:54 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate. He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination He's getting lucky though, since the only social conservative left is Santorum. As soon as Santorum is gone he can go back to being moderate since none of his opponents can really target evangelicals in any substantive way. The problem with Santorum is that he has the stink of being a Bush-type, compassionate conservative (ie, a big government conservative). This is going to turn off any republican who prioritizes fiscal/economic issues over social issues. Also, Romney is socially conservative enough to get a lot of the socially conservative vote anyway.
His problem is his Mormonism and his "past" views. I mean, if you actually look at his views, he's pro gay rights, not particularly anti-abortion, not really religious, etc. This all makes sense if you look at his upbringing and education and it's certainly not a bad thing, but it hurts him with conservatives more than you'd think and it might be a problem in the general election when he needs to rally his base to show up at the polls.
The 25%-ish part of the GOP that values social conservatism over everything else might not be motivated to vote for Romney.
|
On January 16 2012 12:06 hmunkey wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2012 12:03 xDaunt wrote:On January 16 2012 11:58 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:54 mcc wrote:On January 16 2012 11:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On January 16 2012 11:38 hmunkey wrote:On January 16 2012 11:36 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Huntsman dropping out of race. Surprised about the Romney endorsement though. It makes sense though. Romney is the most moderate of the remaining candidates and the one who aligns most to Huntsman's views. Honestly, it's Romney, Obama, then the rest of the candidates if we're ranking them in how closely they align to Hunstman. Except to win the bible belt Romney can't afford to be a moderate. He has to thread a fine line then. Because if his rhetoric becomes too crazy, Obama's campaign will use it against him in general election to sway independents. If he does not step it up he might not get a nomination He's getting lucky though, since the only social conservative left is Santorum. As soon as Santorum is gone he can go back to being moderate since none of his opponents can really target evangelicals in any substantive way. The problem with Santorum is that he has the stink of being a Bush-type, compassionate conservative (ie, a big government conservative). This is going to turn off any republican who prioritizes fiscal/economic issues over social issues. Also, Romney is socially conservative enough to get a lot of the socially conservative vote anyway. His problem is his Mormonism and his "past" views. I mean, if you actually look at his views, he's pro gay rights, not particularly anti-abortion, not really religious, etc. This all makes sense if you look at his upbringing and education and it's certainly not a bad thing, but it hurts him with conservatives more than you'd think and it might be a problem in the general election when he needs to rally his base to show up at the polls. The 25%-ish part of the GOP that values social conservatism over everything else might not be motivated to vote for Romney.
Well, don't you think the base will vote for him just by virtue of not being Obama?
|
On January 16 2012 12:06 hmunkey wrote:
His problem is his Mormonism and his "past" views. I mean, if you actually look at his views, he's pro gay rights, not particularly anti-abortion, not really religious, etc. This all makes sense if you look at his upbringing and education and it's certainly not a bad thing, but it hurts him with conservatives more than you'd think and it might be a problem in the general election when he needs to rally his base to show up at the polls.
If you look at Romney's views, he believes marriage should strictly be between a man and a woman, LGBT couples are definitely worse at parenting than straight couples, and thinks Griswold v. Connecticut was a mistake. Granted, this is still miles to the left of the other Republican nominees, bar Paul.
I direct you to the New Hampshire Republican debate (the one with Stephanopoulos as moderator, there were two back-to-back and I don't remember which one was which). The Economist and The Guardian have good writeups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
