| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Cloud9157
United States2968 Posts
I'm going to be honest: None of these people(other than Romney) stand a chance in hell at beating Obama. They're all crazier than the next person. Only way they will win, is if they spoon-feed the public a large amount of crap and discredit Obama enough. I want Romney to win myself. He is one of the few good Republicans left. | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Also, for party nominations, a candidate needs to have been on the national scene in some capacity prior to that election so that people have some familiarity with him. Both Clinton and Obama were given the keynote speaker spot at the Democratic Convention the election prior to when they won. Going by these guidelines, we can pretty much rule out Perry, Bachmann, etc. The only possibility is Romney, having been on the national stage 4 years ago. And since Romney is far less charismatic and down-to-earth than Obama, he will lose the national election. Barring any really damning scandal, might as well go ahead and book it now. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/08/03/perry_willingham_survey | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:20 Cloud9157 wrote: This is such a weak and pathetic list of nominees. I'm going to be honest: None of these people(other than Romney) stand a chance in hell at beating Obama. They're all crazier than the next person. Only way they will win, is if they spoon-feed the public a large amount of crap and discredit Obama enough. I want Romney to win myself. He is one of the few good Republicans left. Even though I don't like him, Rick Perry has a good shot. In fact, a VERY good shot. He's a hardcore fiscal conservative, but he has a cleaner record than Romney. On August 17 2011 00:22 jdsowa wrote: If you go back and look at the last 30 or 40 years, you can get a pretty good indication of how people vote. In almost every case, the more charismatic, folksy personality won. Obama > McCain, Bush > Kerry, Bush > Gore, Clinton > Dole, Clinton > Bush I, Bush > Dukakis. Also, for party nominations, a candidate needs to have been on the national scene in some capacity prior to that election so that people have some familiarity with him. Both Clinton and Obama were given the keynote speaker spot at the Democratic Convention the election prior to when they won. Going by these guidelines, we can pretty much rule out Perry, Bachmann, etc. The only possibility is Romney, having been on the national stage 4 years ago. And since Romney is far less charismatic and down-to-earth than Obama, he will lose the national election. Barring any really damning scandal, might as well go ahead and book it now. Rick Perry is....pretty well known.... | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:17 GGTesomas wrote: This isn't really true. A good deal of his follower know exactly what he is about. Libertarianism is an extremely appealing political philosophy if you can look beyond the traditional Democrat/Republican viewpoint. I totally understand the appeal, but I've never understood how people could accept it as a practical ideology. I'm a libertarian at heart, really. But I don't want to live in a libertarian world: a world with massive disparities in wealth (worst than we currently have), where giant boom and bust economic cycles more severe than what we have are commonplace, where workers toil for long hours in dangerous conditions for little pay, and where there's no refuge for people who, through no fault of their own, end up sick, homeless, or otherwise unable to support themselves. I want maximum freedom. It's worth dieing for. It's just not something people should die because of. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:05 Scorch wrote: From my European point of view, it baffles me how much support ultra-conservatives/tea party dudes/religious fundamentalists have in the US. Is this because people are anti-Obama and they offer the starkest contrast to his agendas, or do many people actually share their views? I like how you bunch up "ultra-conservatives" with the tea party and religious fundamentalists, when about the only overlap that actually exists there is that a lot of religious fundamentalists are ultra-conservative. The Tea Party, despite what European news reports will tell you, is primarily and fundamentally conservative only in the economic sphere, and thats why it gets support. I will grant that a lot of conservatives hold views that are (in my view) correct while holding them for utterly retarded reasons, but I'd say that's better than the liberal alternative, which is holding retarded views for retarded reasons. | ||
|
Duban
United States548 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:08 NotSupporting wrote: I don't get it, why would someone ever vote for her? Please explain to me why you like her. Because if she wins the primaries there's no chance in hell the republican party will win the election. Atm, the republican options are "Crazy" and "Crazier". "Crazy" might actually have a chance of winning if they hide it will enough. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:13 Omnipresent wrote: This is the exact argument that keeps getting kicked around in almost every thread that remotely involves economics. Libertarians and some fiscal conservatives (but really really just libertarians) think corporations hate the open market. Everyone else thinks they thrive without regulation, buying up competitors, exploiting power over weaker competitors, and taking giant risks with public goods (i.e. the environment). I'm not really in the mood to argue it again. Also, I didn't say Paul was "corporatist" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I said he was a libertarian, and that his economic views happen to be good for big business and bad for the little guy. Why do people think regulations hurt big business somehow? I swear democrats have made up this idea that if they "regulate" business things will get better. The problem is that regulations don't matter to the big businesses. They have the money to pay lobbyist and get the regulations they want. They have the money to pay lawyers to subvert/loophole/and evade the regulations they need to, and to fight long battles if necessary. The only things regulations hurt are the small businesses without the deep pockets who could rise up to challenge the bigger companies if they had a more equal playing field. The government is too much in bed with corporations for any meaningful regulation to work. Perhaps its time we tried something else. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:19 nomel wrote: Thank you. I guess my knowledge was somewhere... in the ball park. When you said grass roots, I remembered the term 'astroturfing' from an article. I believe it was used in connection with the Tea Party. The image I got was that some aspects of the Tea Party only make it look like a grass roots organization (somehow spontaneous and close to the public), while behind the scenes there are things such as corporate lobbyists (and other sinister things). The magazine did not portray it as evil, but somehow more of a marketing trick. Anyway, I'm derailing the thread as I can't even contribute an honest click in the poll. It's both. A lot of the earliest Tea Party events were almost 100% astroturf (corporate events made to look grass roots), but some of the ideas have since gained actual grass roots support and have independent, local organizations behind them. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:23 Omnipresent wrote: I totally understand the appeal, but I've never understood how people could accept it as a practical ideology. I'm a libertarian at heart, really. But I don't want to live in a libertarian world: a world with massive disparities in wealth (worst than we currently have), where giant boom and bust economic cycles more severe than what we have are commonplace, where workers toil for long hours in dangerous conditions for little pay, and where there's no refuge for people who, through no fault of their own, end up sick, homeless, or otherwise unable to support themselves. I want maximum freedom. It's worth dieing for. It's just not something people should die because of. I'd like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that libertarianism, in practice, would result in what you've suggested. It's never been given a fair attempt, with the possible exception of Georgia, and Georgia hasn't been going long enough to really know how to characterize the results. Libertarianism doesn't mean you go balls to the wall "no government interference in the market, ever". Realistically, anyone with education in economics must accept the reality of market failures, and in every instance where market failure occurs there is the possibility of justifiable government interference in the marketplace. | ||
|
thehitman
1105 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:13 Omnipresent wrote: This is the exact argument that keeps getting kicked around in almost every thread that remotely involves economics. Libertarians and some fiscal conservatives (but really really just libertarians) think corporations hate the open market. Everyone else thinks they thrive without regulation, buying up competitors, exploiting power over weaker competitors, and taking giant risks with public goods (i.e. the environment). I'm not really in the mood to argue it again. Also, I didn't say Paul was "corporatist" (whatever that's supposed to mean). I said he was a libertarian, and that his economic views happen to be good for big business and bad for the little guy. NO. Because Obama and Bush before him all worked for the same banks and corporations and look how that turned out. As long as you have corrupt people in power, no matter how much they pretend to fight against the big corporations, behind the door they work FOR the big corporations. Why do you think General electric hasn't paid ANY taxes for 3 years? and the one year they paid taxes, the next one they got government reprieve for "investment". So don't pretend that these regulations, which are just regulations written by the big corporations to screw the little guy are the answer. If you remove all the stupid regulations that put such huge financial and intellectual weight on the small and medium sized business who don't have the money and man power to do all these regulations and eventually close down, making the field even bigger for the big corporations who take over. So all these regulations just hurt the little guy and make it great for the big corporations because the big corporations pay the politicians to vote for legislation they write. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
We'll see how it goes~ =) | ||
|
BlackFlag
499 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:24 LaughingTulkas wrote: Why do people think regulations hurt big business somehow? History. 19th/ early 20th century, industrialization. I mean it's dependent on the regulations, but that's pretty obvious. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:05 Scorch wrote: From my European point of view, it baffles me how much support ultra-conservatives/tea party dudes/religious fundamentalists have in the US. Is this because people are anti-Obama and they offer the starkest contrast to his agendas, or do many people actually share their views? European about to move to the US, and totally agree with this sentiment. I liked the look of McCain at the last election (until he bowed to pressure in his own party and chose Palin...), but I find it hard to take the Republicans seriously as a party. They range from quite sensible people who are simply conservative in their views, to people who basically just say and believe in absolutely stupid things. Some of the stuff quoted to Bachmann, for example, beggars belief - she says things that are quite simply not true, uninformed and yet, worryingly, people voted for her. Worse, she thinks she can actually challenge for the Presidency? The benefits of having a more-than-two-party-system is being able to lump the crazies into little parties away from the serious ones. | ||
|
ArcticVanguard
United States450 Posts
| ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:26 KimJongChill wrote: Hey Republicans, serious question. How can you stand by this party when there are so many nutjobs? I'm not a Democrat either, but it's just that I hear so much crazy stuff about Republicans that I seriously wonder why they are still a political party? Are Democrats as crazy, but we just don't hear about it as much? My personal opinion is that Democrats are equally loony, but they're loony in ways that are easier to ignore. Conservative policies typically seem heartless on the face of things, and only make sense if you make a proper effort to understand the philosophical underpinnings, while Liberal policies appeal to most people's sense of altruism and fairness, even if they're utterly ridiculous when you look closely at them. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:26 KimJongChill wrote: Hey Republicans, serious question. How can you stand by this party when there are so many nutjobs? I'm not a Democrat either, but it's just that I hear so much crazy stuff about Republicans that I seriously wonder why they are still a political party? Are Democrats as crazy, but we just don't hear about it as much? Have you ever stopped to consider that what you're hearing is exaggerated, out of context, or simply untrue? | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On August 17 2011 00:18 Zergneedsfood wrote: I don't think so. Perry has a pretty damn good record from his state. The Republican debate revealed that everyone's economic record wasn't too solid....ironically Jon Huntsman seemed to have the most solid record, but since he's Obama's aide with little name recognition I see him as barely having a chance. Romney flip flopped I believe in the Republican debate too (It's on politifact). His engineering of Romneycare in Massachusetts puts him too close with Obama. He's a mormon, and that cancels out many evangelical votes. And let's face it, he came in fourth after Perry, who wasn't even in the polls......though that was mostly because Colbert ran his super-PAC in Iowa. lulz Perry's known for removing so many taxes from the state of Texas (income tax I believe might be one of them...), he's had high employment rates while the rest of the country tanked, and the fact that Texas's state government is small just like Republicans want make it a very appealing model. He fits the mold that people are looking for in terms of conservative policies actually working. Perry created 40% of the nations jobs but still has a 8.2% unemployment rate in his state (which is higher than many others http://www.bls.gov/lau/). This just proves that it easier to rise from rock bottom than it is from being average or good. He did this by stealing jobs from other states. The New York Times puts it better than me: What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/15/opinion/the-texas-unmiracle.html | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Krystianer vs TBD
TriGGeR vs SKillous
Percival vs TBD
ByuN vs Nicoract
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Solar vs MaxPax
ByuN vs Krystianer
Spirit vs TBD
OSC
|
|
|
EPT
) have some potential, but had not taken the plunge in time. Now it seems too late for him to seriously contend. Seemed like a nice family man though.
