|
On February 14 2012 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:16 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:10 Mohdoo wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. I'd argue that higher university attendance rates, the internet, and the general globalization of culture has made the US a lot less socially conservative. I don't think the idea of "I'm just going to govern in accordance with the bible" would fly nowadays, or ever again for that matter. And here's the only point that I need to make to show how out of touch you are: CALIFORNIA passed Proposition 8 in 2008 -- the same election in which Obama won. Are you unfamiliar with how exactly prop 8 got passed? :p Not to mention, more states have legalized same sex marriage lately.
Yeah, it passed by popular vote as a ballot issue in a staunchly democratic state.
Also, I'm not sure why you're pointing to other states that have legalized gay marriage as evidence that supports your argument. There are only a handful of states that have done this, and far more states have outright banned gay marriage.
|
On February 14 2012 04:14 Saryph wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 00:15 BluePanther wrote:On February 13 2012 23:12 zalz wrote:On February 13 2012 22:46 Adila wrote:
Ron Paul is getting old. This really is probably his last shot. If he tries again in 4 years, whoever he picks as VP would be a huge issue. It should already be a huge issue. People complained about John Mcain. Compared to Ron Paul, Mcain looks like a cover model for men's health. Odds are he'll pick Rand and we don't have to worry about it at all. If someone picked their son as their running mate I am pretty sure they'd lose by default.
Usually I would agree.
But realistically speaking, he's the only congressman who shares the political leanings of his father, and it's not like he doesn't have the credentials to be a VP. It'd be different if Rand wasn't a Senator.
|
On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's.
People overwhelmingly identify as "Conservative" in America. They also identify with "Progressive". Goes to show how good self-identification is in the polls.
Santorum is not and has never been a fiscal conservative (look at his voting record under Bush). He has always been a social conservative. He's been for lowering taxes on the wealthy (no, this is not popular). He also got bounced out of Congress by unprecedented margins in 2006 precisely because of his stance on Social Security.
Current polling gives Obama a 51 - 41 lead on Santorum. Not a single poll has Santorum losing by less than 6.
If Obama delivers the economic goods, you can bet that more people will lean Democratic (see 1996). If not, more people will lean Republican (see 2010). Swing voter's opinions are much more performance based than ideological (see the Clinton reelection).
So no. Santorum would get smashed by Obama, barring an economic calamity. If you disagree, I'd love to make a few wagers if Santorum happens to become the nominee.
|
On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's.
Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings.
Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics.
|
On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics.
The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise.
|
Santorum is a joke, but then again so is this nomination process. There have been a staggering about of rises and falls, all because people don't like Romney, yet somehow he's still front running. Ron paul kicks ass on foreign policy (for the most part), but the rest of them are despicable in my book.
IF santorum gets elected, i'm moving to europe. (eagerly await the "then move to europe" bashing)
|
On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise.
Then please don't generalize him with the rest of the country -_-. Address him as an individual rather than a member of a group based on territory that doesn't impede him from getting knowledge on the U.S.
Calling him 'rampantly delusional' for believing that a candidate might be too radical on certain topics to be voted for en masse by a more moderate base is just a baseless attack. Yes, the election will be more about the economy and about who will seem more able to create jobs, but on that front Obama has been growing in the recent months. Being branded the food stamp president doesn't suddenly make the positive economic figures disappear.
|
On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise.
My economist subscription says otherwise.
I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance.
Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"?
Perhaps make a more compelling case than that.
|
On February 14 2012 07:13 Chaosvuistje wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise. Then please don't generalize him with the rest of the country -_-. Address him as an individual rather than a member of a group based on territory that doesn't impede him from getting knowledge on the U.S. Calling him 'rampantly delusional' for believing that a candidate might be too radical on certain topics to be voted for en masse by a more moderate base is just a baseless attack. Yes, the election will be more about the economy and about who will seem more able to create jobs, but on that front Obama has been growing in the recent months. Being branded the food stamp president doesn't suddenly make the positive economic figures disappear.
That "rampantly delusional" comment was directed at more people than just Zalz, and I stick by it because it's absolutely true. Posters here are letting their personal biases and prejudices from letting them objectively determine whether someone with Santorum's social views is electable. Oh, and here's a newsflash: I'm fairly moderate to liberal on most social issues, and I disagree with Santorum on many points. However, even a cursory review of recent election results around the country leaves me with no doubt that the US is capable of electing someone like Santorum as president.
|
All I know is, after Obama gets reelected, most conservatives are probably going to look back on the election and realize how obvious and inevitable it was from the beginning, just based on the field that was offered. No one is inspired or motivated to vote for Romney, you can't expect "I'm not as bad as the other guy!" to win you an election. The Republican party has much better candidates than these people, but it appears they are being saved for the end of Obama's second term.
|
On February 14 2012 07:16 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise. My economist subscription says otherwise. I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance. Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"? Perhaps make a more compelling case than that.
This really shouldn't be that hard. I have no idea what you're reading in the Economist, so I can't comment on it. However, here's something that should unequivocally settle the issue: go do a little research on which states allow gay marriage and which states have banned it (hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States). Pay special attention to which traditionally blue states have enacted bans.
Now, after looking at this list, feel free to make an argument in good faith that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views.
|
On February 14 2012 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 07:16 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise. My economist subscription says otherwise. I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance. Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"? Perhaps make a more compelling case than that. This really shouldn't be that hard. I have no idea what you're reading in the Economist, so I can't comment on it. However, here's something that should unequivocally settle the issue: go do a little research on which states allow gay marriage and which states have banned it (hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States). Pay special attention to which traditionally blue states have enacted bans. Now, after looking at this list, feel free to make an argument in good faith that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views.
I, for one would never vote for Santorum, primarily because of his stance on social issues and the hypocricy he's shown on multiple issues (tort reform for example). I also don't believe Obama has done a horrible job with the economy starting up again, nor do i think "Obamacare" (which isn't even the name lol) will kill America like conservatives seem to get a rush off of.
There ARE people who wouldnt vote for Santorum, specifically because of his stance on social issues.
|
Quite frankly, I'm with xDaunt. I think America is perfectly capable of electing someone as awful as Santorum, but then I've been a cynic when it comes to America when it comes to things like this. The fact is that America is still a pretty bigoted country, and quite frankly I think a lot of people don't care about social issues (despite the obvious fact that they do help economies). Of course, Santorum doesn't actually want smaller government or anything. Another big-government war-mongering 'conservative' in my eyes. Apparently that's what republicans want nowadays. Sigh.
I don't know. I think Santorum might have a better shot at beating Obama than Romney simply because of the healthcare thing. That's the biggest attack the republicans have right now and Romney really can't use it.
Although, that same-sex marriage map in wikipedia is a little misleading because that's really changing pretty rapidly. Many of those states are reconsidering and changing things around right now. Like it was hugely unpopular ten years ago, and since then the gap has become much less wide.
|
Ron Paul is your only honest politician. Why is he not winning?
Hearing him speak in debates with other politicians is like something out of the twilight zone. It's like he's the last sane (uncorrupted) person left on the planet.
You guys know the other runners just want more war...two sides of the same coin.
|
On February 14 2012 07:47 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 07:31 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 07:16 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise. My economist subscription says otherwise. I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance. Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"? Perhaps make a more compelling case than that. This really shouldn't be that hard. I have no idea what you're reading in the Economist, so I can't comment on it. However, here's something that should unequivocally settle the issue: go do a little research on which states allow gay marriage and which states have banned it (hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States). Pay special attention to which traditionally blue states have enacted bans. Now, after looking at this list, feel free to make an argument in good faith that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views. I, for one would never vote for Santorum, primarily because of his stance on social issues and the hypocricy he's shown on multiple issues (tort reform for example). I also don't believe Obama has done a horrible job with the economy starting up again, nor do i think "Obamacare" (which isn't even the name lol) will kill America like conservatives seem to get a rush off of. There ARE people who wouldnt vote for Santorum, specifically because of his stance on social issues.
So you don't like a republican on social issues, you think he's a hypocrite, you don't think Obama is doing a terrible job, and you don't think Obamacare is dangerous...
So in other words you are a democrat 
I actually agree with you on most of those points, but I do agree with conservatives that the health care reform is going to do far more harm than good. I'm not sure how many people caught this news, but it sure seems relevant to this thread:
Over the weekend it was revealed that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare, backtracked on the analysis he performed two years ago. He told officials in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Colorado the price of insurance premiums will “dramatically increase” under the reforms.
Gruber didn’t merely rebut the president’s contention. He rebutted his own, made in 2009, after he reviewed a report by the insurance industry that contended premiums would rise sharply with the passage of the healthcare bill. At that time Mr. Gruber argued that the industry report failed to take into account government subsidies provided to help moderate-income Americans purchase insurance, or administrative overhead costs he predicted would “fall enormously” once insurance polices were sold through the anticipated government-regulated marketplaces, or exchanges.
As Jonathan Gruber reveals, the fog is still lifting. In backtracking on his original analysis Gruber noted that “even after tax credits some individuals are ‘losers,’ in that they pay more than before reform.” How much more? Gruber was blunt in a presentation to Wisconsin officials last August. “After the application of tax subsidies, 59 percent of the individual market will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent,” Gruber reported.
From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
|
On February 14 2012 08:08 Qxcsgayestfan wrote:
Ron Paul is your only honest politician. Why is he not winning?
Hearing him speak in debates with other politicians is like something out of the twilight zone. It's like he's the last sane (uncorrupted) person left on the planet.
You guys know the other runners just want more war...two sides of the same coin.
Being honest does not mean you are right about things.
|
On February 14 2012 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 07:16 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:56 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:25 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:20 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:13 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 06:08 zalz wrote:On February 14 2012 06:01 xDaunt wrote:On February 14 2012 05:53 zalz wrote:
I would like it if the republican party picked Santorum as their guy.
It would mark the low point for the republican party, and after a crushing defeat they will realize that they need to stop paying lip service to religious crazies and focus on the majority of Americans.
With the economy growing again it will be impossible to defeat Obama anyway. Might as well throw the insane candidate at Obama. You do realize that, policy/platform-wise, Santorum and Ronald Reagan aren't too far apart, right? In fact, they're basically identical on social issues. Nonetheless, that didn't stop Reagan from winning two elections in landslides. Sure, Santorum obviously is not the communicator that Reagan is. However, it's foolish to presume that he's unelectable. Ronald Reagan was elected over 30 years ago. Times have changed. There is also something to be said for personality. Santorum is no Reagan. Nobody is unelectable (except maybe pawlenty), but Santorum is about as much of a long shot as you can get. No, times really haven't changed that much. Bush was just as socially conservative, yet he had no problem winning in 2004. The internet did not even properly exist during Ronald Reagan's election. But sure, the world didn't change. Just because you keep repeating it, doesn't make it true. And you, as a citizen of the Netherlands, are an authority on the American political electorate because of why? Seriously. I'm amazed at how rampantly delusional some of you are. Yes, America is slowly moving to the left on social issues, but it is still a very conservative country that is more than capable of electing someone like Santorum as has been demonstrated repeatedly in recent elections. And here's the other thing to consider. This election is not going to be about social issues. Poll after poll shows that fiscal and economic issues are what voters care about. Accordingly, there will be a lot of people who are willing to overlook what disagreements that they have with Santorum's social views because they prefer his other policies to Obama's. Being born somewhere doesn't instill magical knowledge of a countries history and inner workings. Just because the dirt under your place of birth is identified as American doesn't mean you have a deep understanding of it. Just like me being born on Dutch dirt doesn't make me uninformed on American politics. The fact that you're arguing that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views strongly suggests otherwise. My economist subscription says otherwise. I wasn't aware we were just going to throw silly comments at one another without any real substance. Is your argument truly: "Agree with me or you are uninformed"? Perhaps make a more compelling case than that. This really shouldn't be that hard. I have no idea what you're reading in the Economist, so I can't comment on it. However, here's something that should unequivocally settle the issue: go do a little research on which states allow gay marriage and which states have banned it (hint:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States). Pay special attention to which traditionally blue states have enacted bans. Now, after looking at this list, feel free to make an argument in good faith that Santorum is unelectable because of his social views.
The momentum favors same sex marriage however, both nationally ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/poll-gay-marriage-support_n_830858.html) and in terms of states adopting it. A hard cascading effect may occur even quicker if the S. Court strikes down the sex based federal guidelines on it soon.
It's tough to say, I think his social views are barely electable now but would be viewed as simply an archaic kind of candidate even in 2016. This is all ignoring the fact he polls badly against Obama and IMO has no chance to win the nomination.
|
On February 14 2012 08:10 liberal wrote:
From what I can deduce Obamacare seems to simply be a measure intended to sequentially introduce a single-payer government run system. Insurance companies will be forced to increase their premiums, many employers will be forced to drop coverage of employees, and more people will be uninsured because health care is simply unaffordable. At this point the single payer system will likely be offered as the only "solution" to the problem.
I understand a lot of people, particularly on TL, are in support of a European health care model, but I have to say this is a really terrible way of implementing it.
Everyone who was actually paying attention saw this coming back when Obamacare was being proposed and passed. It's a horrible system designed to break the insurance industry, which it will do unless changed.
|
On February 14 2012 08:08 Qxcsgayestfan wrote:
Ron Paul is your only honest politician. Why is he not winning?
1.There is no honest politician.
2.Honesty is no category in politics.
|
On February 14 2012 08:21 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 08:08 Qxcsgayestfan wrote:
Ron Paul is your only honest politician. Why is he not winning?
1.There is no honest politician. 2.Honesty is no category in politics.
But didn't you hear?
Ron Paul can heal the blind.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
