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 12 2012 08:25 Yongwang wrote: Ron Paul is actually winning the GOP race! Take a look at this:
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
We're a republican and representative democracy, not a direct democracy. While many changes (amendments 12 and 17 mostly) have been heading towards direct democracy, our traditions and the way the original constitution was framed was to be a republic "group" that was governed from bottom up instead of from top down.
It's not so much a "flaw" as it is an actual representation of how our government actually works.
How is the Seventeenth Amendment a move towards direct democracy? In fact that's the worst amendment on the Constitution and is undoubtedly going to be repealed in the future. It didn't do anything for "direct democracy," it just completely destroyed states and gave the federal government more control, ending federalism as we know it.
What? The 17th holds back corruption (which Illinois proved, as it always does, is still around). It's far from the worst. Also, I'm not sure why you're arguing that my statement was wrong? It's removing a layer of representation, therefore is a move towards a more direct democracy...
Ugh. I'm on the RP mailing lists and FB pages and I am so fucking sick of RP supporters making every God damn minor thing into a big deal. Second place in whatever state it was 39% behind Santorum and they cheer like fuck as if they won it. Yet none of them are willing to put money where their mouths are and in a real world market system they would all be placing their bets on Romney winning the nomination. I say to all RP supporters (including myself): Stop fucking claiming you're going to win or stop claiming far second or third place finishes are major victories. If you really think RP is getting traction or on point to winning then fucking invest your money to back up your hyperbole.
well the funny thing is that all those polls in the states dont mean anything because in the end the delegates have to decide who they vote for so it will be quite interesting to see if what the PR guy was saying becomes true and Paul wins the nomination through the delegates.
this weird delegate system is one of the biggest flaws in the US elections and I never really understood why they exist anyway. Are they a relic of pre-telegraph times?
We're a republican and representative democracy, not a direct democracy. While many changes (amendments 12 and 17 mostly) have been heading towards direct democracy, our traditions and the way the original constitution was framed was to be a republic "group" that was governed from bottom up instead of from top down.
It's not so much a "flaw" as it is an actual representation of how our government actually works.
How is the Seventeenth Amendment a move towards direct democracy? In fact that's the worst amendment on the Constitution and is undoubtedly going to be repealed in the future. It didn't do anything for "direct democracy," it just completely destroyed states and gave the federal government more control, ending federalism as we know it.
What? The 17th holds back corruption (which Illinois proved, as it always does, is still around). It's far from the worst. Also, I'm not sure why you're arguing that my statement was wrong? It's removing a layer of representation, therefore is a move towards a more direct democracy...
Indeed. When it was enacted, many state legislatures were essentially being bought out by the railroad industry. There was no way to compete against railroad money for average, or even above average, citizens back then. They would buy out enough of the state legislatures that opposed them, which would then vote for corrupt politicians in the Senate. Turning it into a fully public election meant that a LOT more money had to be spent, and less corrupt "friends of the railroad" would have to run for those offices.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Just about all of them. Conservatives are for the most part deeply pro-government on social issues while being conservative on economic issues. It's the worst mix you could come up with.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
Yes, I forgot gun control. So there's one. Too bad that on basically every other social issue, western European governments give their people far more freedoms than we get in the U.S.
Just about all of them. Conservatives are for the most part deeply pro-government on social issues while being conservative on economic issues. It's the worst mix you could come up with.
I'm a little confused. That sounds like American politicians (mostly Republicans).
Why is everyone overlooking Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana? He has been campaigning for the GOP nomination since March 2011 and still continues too. Yet he has received hardly any coverage in the mainstream media and even on these (and other) forums, references to him are sparse. So why is he so underrepresented here, I mean we have people openly supporting Rick Santorum and Barack Obama (the two worst candidates in the race) on the boards, but not Buddy Roemer? Isn't that a bit messed up? So what does everyone think about him and his policies?
On February 15 2012 11:45 Yongwang wrote: Why is everyone overlooking Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana? He has been campaigning for the GOP nomination since March 2011 and still continues too. Yet he has received hardly any coverage in the mainstream media and even on these (and other) forums, references to him are sparse. So why is he so underrepresented here, I mean we have people openly supporting Rick Santorum and Barack Obama (the two worst candidates in the race) on the boards, but not Buddy Roemer? Isn't that a bit messed up? So what does everyone think about him and his policies?
It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have. Furthermore, that's just how the media works. The men that are more popular originally/have more money are going to get the coverage. If you want a civilized discussion, take your obnoxious levels of bias and tone them down a bit.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
He's technically right, libertarianism is neo-liberalism. It's as reasonable for Ron Paul to run for the Democratic nomination as it is for him to run for the Republican nomination.
The values Santorum is representing is New Conservatism, liberal on free-market, classically conservative on social issues (basically believing without government intervention in social issues humanities morality will fall to the wayside towards hedonist debauchery).
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
Yes, I forgot gun control. So there's one. Too bad that on basically every other social issue, western European governments give their people far more freedoms than we get in the U.S.
Just about all of them. Conservatives are for the most part deeply pro-government on social issues while being conservative on economic issues. It's the worst mix you could come up with.
I'm a little confused. That sounds like American politicians (mostly Republicans).
Yes, I did mean American Republicans. Why are you confused?
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
He's technically right, libertarianism is neo-liberalism. It's as reasonable for Ron Paul to run for the Democratic nomination as it is for him to run for the Republican nomination.
The values Santorum is representing is New Conservatism, liberal on free-market, classically conservative on social issues (basically believing without government intervention in social issues humanities morality will fall to the wayside towards hedonist debauchery).
The problem is that our political system is absolutely atrocious. A two-party system is terrible because politics just don't work that way. Right here we can see a situation where at least three combinations are possible - Liberal both fiscally and socially (Democrats), conservative both fiscally and socially (Republicans), and liberal socially and conservative fiscally (Libertarians), and this is an extremely simplistic view of politics. There are many more ways that this can go.
Yes, I did mean American Republicans. Why are you confused?
Because I was asking on what social issues were western European politicians more conservative on (as in support more government regulation of social activity)?
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
I´d rather have universal health care than the shady government bureaucracy spying on me via the patriot act and other laws heading into this direction. That´s in my opinion a more dangerous road towards "controlling people".
On February 15 2012 11:45 Yongwang wrote: Why is everyone overlooking Buddy Roemer, the former governor of Louisiana? He has been campaigning for the GOP nomination since March 2011 and still continues too. Yet he has received hardly any coverage in the mainstream media and even on these (and other) forums, references to him are sparse. So why is he so underrepresented here, I mean we have people openly supporting Rick Santorum and Barack Obama (the two worst candidates in the race) on the boards, but not Buddy Roemer? Isn't that a bit messed up? So what does everyone think about him and his policies?
It's hardly "messed up", especially when many here think that Obama is the best choice that we have. Furthermore, that's just how the media works. The men that are more popular originally/have more money are going to get the coverage. If you want a civilized discussion, take your obnoxious levels of bias and tone them down a bit.
Out of all the candidates there are better ones than Obama, but out of the front runners in Rep. party, and since the dems aren't running a primary, Obama is the least worst candidate that will most probably win anyways.
@Stratos again,
Because I was asking on what social issues were western European politicians more conservative on (as in support more government regulation of social activity)?
I think we may just be mixing up terms/semantics I thought conservative favoured less government both economically and socially. As in less support for regulation of social activity.
On February 15 2012 10:58 Yongwang wrote: How could anyone support Rick Santorum, he's a liberal/socialist in Republican clothes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXqDVTdei30
By that standard you could never support any republican since Eisenhower.
This just shows how out of touch with reality this man is. The U.S. is quite unique in how much conversation there is about the government's role in controlling morality/actions of its people. I can't think of another western developed country that comes close to how much control its politicians try to exert over its people's actions.
Just look at the European Union and the lefties who are/were in charge of Europe. You'll see these politicians and bureaucrats trying to control their people to an extent far worse than here in the States.
What social issues are these "lefties" more conservative on than U.S. conservatives? Or U.S. politicians in general?
Obviously gun control would be one of them, there's nothing "liberal" about wanting to ban/control guns. But in Europe they mostly use economics, globalization, and bureaucracy to control the population.
I´d rather have universal health care than the shady government bureaucracy spying on me via the patriot act and other laws heading into this direction. That´s in my opinion a more dangerous road towards "controlling people".
Exactly. Republicans are incredibly hypocritical when it comes to the idea of "liberty". Apparently social freedom just isn't a concept they understand, and all they think about is fiscal freedom.
EPT
I thought conservative favoured less government both economically and socially. As in less support for regulation of social activity.
