Republican nominations - Page 539

On March 10 2012 18:00 sc2superfan101 wrote:
man Santorum gets really blasted in this thread. it always makes me feel so wierd posting in here knowing i'm probably the only one that kind of wants him to win the nomination.

On March 11 2012 00:43 Risen wrote:

Edit: This was sparked b/c I told him I voted for Santorum and he responded with this before I could tell him I only did it b/c I wanted the party to burn so it could be rebuilt...

On March 10 2012 23:44 BioNova wrote:



Funny, I've heard the live abroad, and look within line more than a dozen times. Jesse Ventura was the last I think use that term. Out of all the people who have used that phrase, you might be the only one who said it stumping for Obama.

I more than 'don't agree'. The shame is people who evidently at this late hour still believe in hope and change(from him).

Sc2Superfan, when you approach middle -age, you've heard all the BS before from multiple candidates, you tend to not end up falling in to the candidates 'pillow talk' and the internet wasn't accesible like when I was 18 and 1000 points of light were shining thru my living room. Obama failed you, and democrats, and anyone who voted on his 08 campaign that isn't a insider. Whistleblower, Gitmo, Perpetual Warfare. At least his stazi brown shirts are not fully fuctional yet. Good ole lame duck shenanigans to come...

On March 11 2012 01:16 BluePanther wrote:


It will be. I was speaking with a handful of the younger people in the office I work with (it's a campaign office). I was surprised at how many of them essentially consider themselves to be the social liberal/economic conservative that many of us moderates really want. They basically say they have to deal witht he religious attachment simply because it's needed at this point to win elections. In 20 years, these individuals will be the ones running the Republican Party (at least in my state). It gives me hope.

On March 11 2012 01:25 Derez wrote:


He was actually arguing against Obama and voted for McCain. It's also ironic how all the 'policies' you mention are policies originally instituted by his republican predecessor. Your 'perpetual warfare' is a leftover from the glorious Bush years, as is Gitmo, as are the bailouts, as are most encroachments on your personal freedom (I'd say the patriot act was the bigger evil then the healthcare bill).

Obama disappointed the far left, because his policies are too moderate, I'll give you that. Obama is essentially a centrist moderate, as was Clinton before him. Especially when it comes to foreign policy he has done a much better job then his predecessor: The republican bush years led to two major conflicts, one of them avoidable, both of them poorly planned. Obama blew a couple of billion bombing Libya, but that's about it. He has run a sane, multilateral foreign policy and I honestly don't see how the republicans are offering an alternative at all, even more so when you take the actual campaign promises into account (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran). How promising a new middle eastern conflict is winning anyone votes is beyond me.

On March 11 2012 01:57 BluePanther wrote:


Perpetual warfare isn't something that Bush started... remember Korea? Veitnam? Cold War? Gulf Wars? Several others?


And to say Obama is a centrist is somewhat laughable. He's a centrist and moderate in foreign affairs (which is good imo), but he's far from that when it comes to domestic policies. Unlike the last election, this one will not be dominated by foreign affairs discussions. It will be decided on domestic and cultural affairs. On those topics, Obama is somewhat of an outsider.

On March 11 2012 01:25 Derez wrote:


He was actually arguing against Obama and voted for McCain. It's also ironic how all the 'policies' you mention are policies originally instituted by his republican predecessor. Your 'perpetual warfare' is a leftover from the glorious Bush years, as is Gitmo, as are the bailouts, as are most encroachments on your personal freedom (I'd say the patriot act was the bigger evil then the healthcare bill).

Obama disappointed the far left, because his policies are too moderate, I'll give you that. Obama is essentially a centrist moderate, as was Clinton before him. Especially when it comes to foreign policy he has done a much better job then his predecessor: The republican bush years led to two major conflicts, one of them avoidable, both of them poorly planned. Obama blew a couple of billion bombing Libya, but that's about it. He has run a sane, multilateral foreign policy and I honestly don't see how the republicans are offering an alternative at all, even more so when you take the actual campaign promises into account (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran). How promising a new middle eastern conflict is winning anyone votes is beyond me.

On March 11 2012 00:57 DamnCats wrote:


sc2superfan = stephen colbert?

Best post in this thread.

ELLISVILLE, Miss. — Spurning calls for him to get out, Newt Gingrich insisted Friday that he’ll stay in the race for the Republican presidential nomination even if he loses two Southern primaries next week.

“I think there’s a fair chance we’ll win,” the former House speaker told The Associated Press about the contests Tuesday in Alabama and Mississippi. “But I just want to set this to rest once and for all. We’re going to Tampa.”

Gingrich said he intended to campaign all the way to the Republican National Convention in August, regardless of whether he has won the 1,144 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

His comments contradicted assertions by a key aide that Gingrich must win both states to remain viable.

Asked if he must win the pair, Gingrich replied: “No.”

Gingrich, who represented Georgia in Congress for two decades, spent most of the week shuttling between Alabama and Mississippi, addressing hundreds at rallies across both states about his proposal to expand U.S. petroleum exploration and drive gas prices down to $2.50 a gallon.

He won a home field primary in Georgia, his only victory among the 10 states that voted earlier this week, and canceled a scheduled trip to Kansas, which holds caucuses Saturday, to maintain his focus on the Deep South. His only other win of the season came in South Carolina in January.

Rick Santorum was projected the winner of the 2012 Kansas Caucus on Saturday by the AP.

In the contest, 40 delegates were at stake. The results come less than one week after ten states held primaries or caucuses on Super Tuesday.

The race for the Republican presidential nomination will now turn to the South ahead of the Alabama primary and Mississippi primary, which will take place on Tuesday. Voters in Hawaii will cast ballots in the state's caucus the same day.

But it’s not just environmentalists who are howling in the wilderness.

“The firms involved have asked the US State Department to approve this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the US fuel bill,” Philip K. Verleger, president of PKVerleger LLC, a Colorado consulting firm that specializes in research on oil market economics, wrote in a Minneapolis Star-Tribune commentary last March.

US farmers who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009 could see those costs rise to $15 billion or higher if the pipeline goes through, he projects. At least $500 million of the added cost “would come from the Canadian market manipulation,” he wrote.

“Millions of Americans will spend 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel as tribute to our ‘friendly’ neighbors to the north,” the highly respected Dr. Verleger wrote. “The Keystone XL pipeline will move production from Canadian oil sands to a deepwater port from where it can be exported.”

But that is not merely Verleger’s opinion. It’s based on findings of the economic consultants hired by TransCanada – contained in their analyses of the pipeline’s impact on Canadian oil producers and in official testimony before Canada's National Energy Board.

“Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally [the US Midwest], are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil,” concludes a 2009 analysis on behalf of TransCanada by Purvin & Gertz, Inc., an oil economics firm based in Houston. “Access to the [US Gulf Coast] via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in [the Midwest market] by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude.”

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0309/Inside-the-Keystone-pipeline-How-much-would-it-really-help-US-consumers

On March 10 2012 23:44 BioNova wrote:



Funny, I've heard the live abroad, and look within line more than a dozen times. Jesse Ventura was the last I think use that term. Out of all the people who have used that phrase, you might be the only one who said it stumping for Obama.

I more than 'don't agree'. The shame is people who evidently at this late hour still believe in hope and change(from him).

Sc2Superfan, when you approach middle -age, you've heard all the BS before from multiple candidates, you tend to not end up falling in to the candidates 'pillow talk' and the internet wasn't accesible like when I was 18 and 1000 points of light were shining thru my living room. Obama failed you,and democrats, and anyone who voted on his 08 campaign that isn't a insider. Whistleblower, Gitmo, Perpetual Warfare. At least his stazi brown shirts are not fully fuctional yet. Good ole lame duck shenanigans to come...

On March 11 2012 06:46 Defacer wrote:



It's exactly this kind of reaction that reinforces my perspective, and makes me feel ... well ... sorry for you.

You see, I DON'T expect a leader or single person -- and certainly not a politician -- to magically change the world through sheer will power and good intentions, as you and many Americans apparently do. ALL POLITICIANS engage in flowery talk, insist that they will change the world ... that's what Americans seem to demand from their leaders.

I also DON'T blame a single person for everything that might disappoint me about the country I live in. I understand the politics and agendas of others will always make getting anything done 20 times more complicated than it needs to be. I understand bureaucracy will always make the execution of an agenda labored and complicated. Have you seen how decisions are made in government, even on a municipal level?

Sure Obama hasn't kept all his promises. He's only been on the job for three years. It took my city a decade just to approve a fucking dog park.

Why are there still Americans that are so naive to seriously believe you can heap all the blame and success in your country on one person? Do they actually believe the fallacy -- flung at them through hyperbole and slander and attack ads and op-eds and super PACs and stump speeches -- that claims that only ONE PERSON IS TO BLAME and ONLY I CAN SAVE IT?

This is exactly what I mean by wishing Americans could look at their media from the outside. Because it's obvious that when people complain about Obama 'not getting something done', they should actually be frustrated with the plodding and laborious nature of their federal government overall, and it's inability to make or act upon swift decisions.

I personally expect a world leader to be: well-spoken, worldly, able to build consensus, negotiate well, make intelligent final decisions, and mobilize people when he needs to. Some of these decisions include knowing when to compromise, knowing when to push your agenda, and knowing when to STFU and let your opponent bury their own grave. Obama is pretty good in this regard.

Expecting more -- overhauling the whole structure of government and departments overnight, raising or cutting taxes at the drop of a hat, killing trillions of dollars of social services and the drop of a hat, ending a war with a phone call -- is not how the government could -- or should -- work.

I think Romney campaign is technically wrong in saying it won more delegates today; they're including WY delegates that were already counted.

Romney campaign is also counting super delegates that had committed to them previously. So their delegate claim is dubious.

On March 11 2012 06:46 Defacer wrote:



It's exactly this kind of reaction that reinforces my perspective, and makes me feel ... well ... sorry for you.

You see, I DON'T expect a leader or single person -- and certainly not a politician -- to magically change the world through sheer will power and good intentions, as you and many Americans apparently do. ALL POLITICIANS engage in flowery talk, insist that they will change the world ... that's what Americans seem to demand from their leaders.

I also DON'T blame a single person for everything that might disappoint me about the country I live in. I understand the politics and agendas of others will always make getting anything done 20 times more complicated than it needs to be. I understand bureaucracy will always make the execution of an agenda labored and complicated. Have you seen how decisions are made in government, even on a municipal level?

Sure Obama hasn't kept all his promises. He's only been on the job for three years. It took my city a decade just to approve a fucking dog park.

Why are there still Americans that are so naive to seriously believe you can heap all the blame and success in your country on one person? Do they actually believe the fallacy -- flung at them through hyperbole and slander and attack ads and op-eds and super PACs and stump speeches -- that claims that only ONE PERSON IS TO BLAME and ONLY I CAN SAVE IT?

This is exactly what I mean by wishing Americans could look at their media from the outside. Because it's obvious that when people complain about Obama 'not getting something done', they should actually be frustrated with the plodding and laborious nature of their federal government overall, and it's inability to make or act upon swift decisions.

I personally expect a world leader to be: well-spoken, worldly, able to build consensus, negotiate well, make intelligent final decisions, and mobilize people when he needs to. Some of these decisions include knowing when to compromise, knowing when to push your agenda, and knowing when to STFU and let your opponent dig their own grave. Obama is pretty good in this regard.

Expecting more -- overhauling the whole structure of government and departments overnight, raising or cutting taxes at the drop of a hat, killing trillions of dollars of social services at a whim, ending a war with a phone call -- is not how the government could -- or should -- work.