|
On March 05 2012 06:08 RageBot wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 05:40 liberal wrote:On March 05 2012 05:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Romney is all over the Map on this one. Mitt Romney is facing a barrage of conservative attacks after it was revealed late Friday that he wrote a July 2009 op-ed in USA Today calling on President Obama to adopt an individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, the provision that Republicans today despise and which Romney says he virulently opposes on a federal level.
In the piece, however, Romney urged Obama to “learn a thing or two” from his Massachusetts plan that contained the same mandate, and made the case for it. “First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance,” Romney wrote. “Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ‘free riders’ to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”
Among the first to take aim at Romney was his chief Republican 2012 rival Rick Santorum. “Governor Romney has been saying throughout the course of this campaign, ‘Oh, I never recommended that they adopt my program in Massachusetts for an individual federal mandate,’” Santorum told a crowd of several hundred people Saturday in Ohio. “Oh yes, he did. In a 2009 USA Today op-ed, he recommended, he made suggestions to President Obama, including the individual mandate and taxing people who don’t buy insurance. That is the individual mandate.”
Team Romney pushed back on Santorum’s charge.
“Rick Santorum has a habit of making distortions, exaggerations and falsehoods about Mitt Romney’s record,” Romney’s spokesperson Andrea Saul told TPM. “Governor Romney has never advocated for a federal individual mandate. He believes in the Tenth Amendment and, as a result, has always said that states should be free to come up with their own health care reforms.” Source That's pretty funny. Romney isn't allowed to be honest on this issue. Honesty would lose him the candidacy. Not that he isn't going to lose to Obama anyway. This whole republican race feels like an inconsequential side show. I don't know actually, i've read somewhere that a lot of pepole have stopped describing themselves as democratic, and are now more republican leaning, than before.
I believe its that most people will describe themselves as "conservatives" as opposed to "liberals", but most people will also say that they are "progressive". So-called liberals have always been a minority anyways.
|
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
|
The odd thing about all this is all current GOP nominees hate Progressives with a passion. They demonize it etc. Yet the first Progressives were Republicans and nearly split the party in two under Roosevelt.
|
On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
I would give them mad props-- take balls to do that. Unfortunately, there's no one or group in the party whose powerful enough to just declare that officially. If there was, then the GOP wouldn't be in such a shithole to begin with.
|
On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
Why would they do that? They might get respect out of a few but I'd bet they'd lose respect from others for giving up. Personally I would just be confused by such action, it's not like they are out of the race completely.
|
On March 05 2012 06:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The odd thing about all this is all current GOP nominees hate Progressives with a passion. They demonize it etc. Yet the first Progressives were Republicans and nearly split the party in two under Roosevelt.
That's not that odd. Politics has changed a lot since then. The parties have changed a lot since then. We're in a new century man!
On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
That would just be weird. I mean they're the ones pushing for the ultraconservative stuff. I would probably just call them quitters, unless they actually say "we're going to try to change the way our party works" or something.
|
On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
Theres no unified leader of the party though that an just make a blanket statement like that. John Boehner might be the closest, but he would never do it because it would destroy his credibility among certain bases.
|
On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for."
The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal.
|
On March 05 2012 06:53 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." Theres no unified leader of the party though that an just make a blanket statement like that. John Boehner might be the closest, but he would never do it because it would destroy his credibility among certain bases.
True.
|
On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal.
Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far...
edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha.
|
On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha.
You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do?
|
On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do?
I don't know... It seems to me like the party is just permanently divided. The religious/bluecollar/Santorum type voters are at odds with the moderate/whitecollar/Romney voters who are at odds with the libertarian/radical-reform/Paul voters. There is no way you can ever get those groups to come together on a single candidate, because their desires and goals are so different.
The only goal they have in common is "beat Obama."
|
On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do?
I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy.
edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[
|
On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do?
I'm sure there is a ton of research done to figure out exactly what sorts of positions would be favorable.
|
On March 05 2012 07:14 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I don't know... It seems to me like the party is just permanently divided. The religious/bluecollar/Santorum type voters are at odds with the moderate/whitecollar/Romney voters who are at odds with the libertarian/radical-reform/Paul voters. There is no way you can ever get those groups to come together on a single candidate, because their desires and goals are so different. The only goal they have in common is "beat Obama."
The problem isn't that the party is divided. The problem is that all of the candidates have flawed backgrounds. There is no credible and likable small government, social conservative running in this race, and there never has been.
|
On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[
Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican.
|
On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican.
It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican.
|
On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican.
Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger!
|
Its also a problem of a 2 party system.
In countries with a bigger political base these different camps would drift apart into different parties giving each a core base that members relate to.
As someone above said. The republican party seems to be united only by there hate for the Democrats.
|
On March 05 2012 07:25 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:23 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:21 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:16 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 07:04 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 07:01 DamnCats wrote:On March 05 2012 06:57 xDaunt wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 DamnCats wrote:
I posted this on reddit also, but heres a question for anyone who cares to answer.
Would anyone else actually have more respect for the republican party if they just came out and said, "You know what? We fucked up. We fucked up big time. We concede 2012 to Obama, and in 4 years we'll be back with hopefully some candidates that actually make it hard to choose who to vote for." The "party" hasn't fucked anything up. It's not the party's fault that all of the candidates that chose to step forward and run were/are less than ideal. Yea... I suppose if anyone's at fault it's everyone whos voted in the primaries so far... edit: And telling your own party voters they can't pick candidates worth shit probably isn't a very popular thing to do. haha. You're totally missing the point. Voters can only vote for people who are running. Every candidate who has been in the race has been flawed.If only crappy candidates are running, then what is the voter supposed to do? I would agree with the exception of Huntsman. Seemed like a reasonable guy. edit: his flaw was not having billionaires back him up :[ Comments like this are why it's silly to have a bunch of liberals comment on the republican primary. Republicans never wanted and never liked Huntsman because he is barely a republican. It's funny cause believing in science makes you not a republican. Man, you're on a roll with the A+ commentary. Keep it up, tiger!
Just saying that seems to be the case with Huntsman... slugger?
edit: seriously show me where another candidate has publicly, like on twitter, said they believe in evolution. I'd be glad to be proved wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
