|
|
On May 10 2012 20:06 Thylacine wrote:
Why would anyone vote for a republican asshole? Honestly? I know Obama doesen't do anything usefull now that hes president, I don't like him either but come on, you want some Christian anti-gay bible thumper to rule your country and at the same time be the mightiest person in the world?
...Wow.
Congratulations.
You reduced several dozens of pages of relatively polite discourse into an ignorant flamefest.
You even know who Mitt Romney is?!
|
On May 11 2012 02:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Lots of people think that the most fearsome phrase in the English language is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."
And they're right. Except that they base that fear on their experience of dealing with a government corrupt by private interest - one that is most certainly not there to help anyone other than the companies they're paid to work for. It's not based on an experience with a functional government in a democratic society, an experience that nobody in United States had recently, if ever.
Their fears are entirely justified - they only struggle to accurately pinpoint the real source of their problems with the government. Which isn't much of a surprise, given the state of the media these days.
|
And they're right. Except that they base that fear on their experience of dealing with a government corrupt by private interest - one that is most certainly not there to help anyone other than the companies they're paid to work for. It's not based on an experience with a functional government in a democratic society, an experience that nobody in United States had recently, if ever.
Nonsense. They base their fear on the experience of dealing with a government that enforces rules that make no sense, cooks up top-down schemes that always cost more than it is said they will and bring less benefits than promised, enriches its minions, is full of busybodies, and doles out favors based on ideology rather than pragmatism.
You don't know anything about functional, democratic government, so why you presume to pontificate as to whether others have experienced it is a mystery.
Their fears are entirely justified - they only struggle to accurately pinpoint the real source of their problems with the government. Which isn't much of a surprise, given the state of the media these days.
They only struggle to point the finger the way you want them to. The most corrupt and inefficient governments of the last century and of today as well were the ones that sought to destroy private interest - not that you're interested in fact. You're interested in your overbearing rage. Reactionary hatred against private interest is dead and buried - except among the unserious. It lost. Sorry. It died 20 years ago. The blood and the starvation and the beatings and the intellectual desiccation and the general shittyness of life under its rule killed it. It isn't coming back.
|
On May 11 2012 02:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +And they're right. Except that they base that fear on their experience of dealing with a government corrupt by private interest - one that is most certainly not there to help anyone other than the companies they're paid to work for. It's not based on an experience with a functional government in a democratic society, an experience that nobody in United States had recently, if ever. Nonsense. They base their fear on the experience of dealing with a government that enforces rules that make no sense, cooks up top-down schemes that always cost more than it is said they will and bring less benefits than promised, enriches its minions, is full of busybodies, and doles out favors based on ideology rather than pragmatism.
Replace socialism by "government".
http://www.clusterflock.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Obamacare.png
|
On May 11 2012 02:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +And they're right. Except that they base that fear on their experience of dealing with a government corrupt by private interest - one that is most certainly not there to help anyone other than the companies they're paid to work for. It's not based on an experience with a functional government in a democratic society, an experience that nobody in United States had recently, if ever. Nonsense. They base their fear on the experience of dealing with a government that enforces rules that make no sense, cooks up top-down schemes that always cost more than it is said they will and bring less benefits than promised, enriches its minions, is full of busybodies, and doles out favors based on ideology rather than pragmatism. You don't know anything about functional, democratic government, so why you presume to pontificate as to whether others have experienced it is a mystery. Show nested quote +Their fears are entirely justified - they only struggle to accurately pinpoint the real source of their problems with the government. Which isn't much of a surprise, given the state of the media these days. They only struggle to point the finger the way you want them to. The most corrupt and inefficient governments of the last century and of today as well were the ones that sought to destroy private interest - not that you're interested in fact. You're interested in your overbearing rage. Reactionary hatred against private interest is dead and buried - except among the unserious. It lost. Sorry. It died 20 years ago. The blood and the starvation and the beatings and the intellectual desiccation and the general shittyness of life under its rule killed it. It isn't coming back.
Sans the unfounded descriptor "reactionary", what, in terms of actual hard evidence and not political saber-waving, is this conclusion based on? You clearly see government as at the top of the negative totem poll, and insist baselessly that everyone else worth a damn does. With any reasonable assessment of the political landscape in recent months, it is abundantly obvious that a very large number of people can provide compelling argumentation that makes it clear that corporations and special interest groups have a horrendously undue influence and power in society/government. To so virulently insist that only your way of seeing things is correct is awfully myopic.
|
On May 11 2012 02:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Nonsense. They base their fear on the experience of dealing with a government that enforces rules that make no sense, cooks up top-down schemes that always cost more than it is said they will and bring less benefits than promised, enriches its minions, is full of busybodies, and doles out favors based on ideology rather than pragmatism.
Meanwhile in the real world, political representatives on every level ARE the minions that amass wealth by serving the companies that fund their campaigns and their lifestyle, and the ideology you only get to hear on television during said campaigns and various PR stunts while they're in office. Two candidates in the OP being the prime examples of steadfast ideologues that NEVER backed down an inch from accomplishing what they truly believe in! If they can even remember what it is, or in Romney's case, what's on the weekly agenda.
On May 11 2012 02:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +And they're right. Except that they base that fear on their experience of dealing with a government corrupt by private interest - one that is most certainly not there to help anyone other than the companies they're paid to work for. It's not based on an experience with a functional government in a democratic society, an experience that nobody in United States had recently, if ever. They only struggle to point the finger the way you want them to. The most corrupt and inefficient governments of the last century and of today as well were the ones that sought to destroy private interest - not that you're interested in fact. You're interested in your overbearing rage.
Really? Name ONE. Today. In a democratic society. I can't even guess which countries you're aiming at here, and I can usually guess everything you're about to say in your posts.
Inefficiency is not the same as corruption. When the political system is not corrupt, you merely replace an inefficient government with an efficient one. If the system can't come up with a more efficient one, then it is probably not as inefficient as you like to think. Either that, or making it more "efficient" would involve sacrificing some of the ethical norms of the society - and while I get that you would happily see that happen in some cases, that's exactly why the choice is not yours or anybody else's to make alone.
|
Ghost-bama needs his picture reuploaded in the OP!
|
On May 11 2012 02:26 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 02:19 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Lots of people think that one of the most brilliant and effective campaign phrases in the English language since Reagan is, "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help." Fixed that for you.
No, it's just that it's okay if they're here to help corporations, and bad if they're here to help citizens.
|
On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt.
Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt.
Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
|
On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government.
So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. Cheering for Ron Paul won't make a difference either.
|
On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph.
|
On May 11 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph.
Look at it this way.... After Bush, the Democrats were assured a victory. There was no way they were gonna lose. And there was no way anyone was gonna fight for limited government or argue for Republicans on that basis after Bush.
After Obama the opposite happened. The Tea Party rose up primarily on the issues of debt and limited government. They threw the institutional Republicans out of office and put in Tea Party candidates. Ron Paul's popularity grew larger than ever.
So long as the Republicans are in power, they will be worse in the public mind and limited government ideology will be nonexistent. When the Democrats are in power long enough, the public will become sick with them as well and their ideology. So in the long run electing Republicans is probably worse for those who believe in achieving a true limited government candidate in the white house/congress, or more importantly, winning the war of ideas.
Of course this theory of mine is somewhat debunked by the fact that Germany and Greece provided a clear dichotomy for Europe, and France still elected a socialist. That's why I was saying it doesn't matter what happens honestly...
|
This week seems to be imrpoving for Obama while getting worse for Romney, now comes a story that Romney bullied a gay student at Prep School, Romney's response actually hurts him.
“He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled.
A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.
The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections.
Source
|
On May 11 2012 03:53 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph. Look at it this way.... After Bush, the Democrats were assured a victory. There was no way there were gonna lose. And there was no way anyone was gonna fight for limited government or argue for Republicans on that basis after Bush. After Obama the opposite happened. The Tea Party rose up primarily on the issue of debt and limited government. They threw the institutional Republicans out of office and put in Tea Party candidates. Ron Paul's popularity grew larger than ever. So long as the Republicans are in power, they will be worse in the public mind and limited government ideology will be nonexistent. When the Democrats are in power long enough, the public will become sick with them as well and their ideology. So in the long run electing Republicans is probably worse for those who believe in achieving a true limited government candidate in the white house/congress. Of course this theory of mine is somewhat debunked by the fact that Germany and Greece provided a clear dichotomy for Europe, and France elected a socialist. That's why I was saying it doesn't matter what happens honestly...
You're going to use the difference between Greece and Germany to criticize the socialist ideas of Hollande? Really?
|
On May 11 2012 03:58 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:53 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph. Look at it this way.... After Bush, the Democrats were assured a victory. There was no way there were gonna lose. And there was no way anyone was gonna fight for limited government or argue for Republicans on that basis after Bush. After Obama the opposite happened. The Tea Party rose up primarily on the issue of debt and limited government. They threw the institutional Republicans out of office and put in Tea Party candidates. Ron Paul's popularity grew larger than ever. So long as the Republicans are in power, they will be worse in the public mind and limited government ideology will be nonexistent. When the Democrats are in power long enough, the public will become sick with them as well and their ideology. So in the long run electing Republicans is probably worse for those who believe in achieving a true limited government candidate in the white house/congress. Of course this theory of mine is somewhat debunked by the fact that Germany and Greece provided a clear dichotomy for Europe, and France elected a socialist. That's why I was saying it doesn't matter what happens honestly... You're going to use the difference between Greece and Germany to criticize the socialist ideas of Hollande? Really?
I'm just saying there is a battle in Europe, austerity vs. spending, and Hollande is certainly not a representative of austerity. The public in both France and Greece have made their decision.
|
Mitt Romney has far too much disconnect with the majority of the people in his country. He has never experienced actual financial hardship. Raised by a super-rich father into the best schools with only the elite surrounding him, he really has no idea what kind of challenges most people face within the country. This has been illustrated over and over through his primary campaign, punctuated by events such as him attempting to bet Rick Perry $10k over some trivial debate fact. 10k to him is the same as 10$ is to the regular person.
He brings forward his business experience as an asset for managing the government. What he fails to mention is that his business ventures have left a trail of bankrupt companies and mass layoffs. For an example of this, look up what happened to Toys KB after the Bain buyout.
Most of the rest of the world watches the US elections with morbid amusement, mostly because we're amazed at how people can support those like Mitt Romney, who so obviously doesn't care at all about anyone but himself.
|
On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding
That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah.
The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing.
While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
|
On May 11 2012 04:06 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:58 kwizach wrote:On May 11 2012 03:53 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph. Look at it this way.... After Bush, the Democrats were assured a victory. There was no way there were gonna lose. And there was no way anyone was gonna fight for limited government or argue for Republicans on that basis after Bush. After Obama the opposite happened. The Tea Party rose up primarily on the issue of debt and limited government. They threw the institutional Republicans out of office and put in Tea Party candidates. Ron Paul's popularity grew larger than ever. So long as the Republicans are in power, they will be worse in the public mind and limited government ideology will be nonexistent. When the Democrats are in power long enough, the public will become sick with them as well and their ideology. So in the long run electing Republicans is probably worse for those who believe in achieving a true limited government candidate in the white house/congress. Of course this theory of mine is somewhat debunked by the fact that Germany and Greece provided a clear dichotomy for Europe, and France elected a socialist. That's why I was saying it doesn't matter what happens honestly... You're going to use the difference between Greece and Germany to criticize the socialist ideas of Hollande? Really? I'm just saying there is a battle in Europe, austerity vs. spending, and Hollande is certainly not a representative of austerity. The public in both France and Greece have made their decision.
Yes there is - and rightfully so. Since it is madness to cut even more spending in a country that is already in a depression, heavily relies on GDP produced by the public sector - without a perspective for growth and hope for the people living there.
That was also one of the main reasons for the massive increase in voters for the extreme left and right in Greece, which will lead to even more political instability and makes Greece a no go for potential investors - a perfect downward spiral. But that should be discussed in a different thread.
//offtopic out.
|
On May 11 2012 04:21 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding That's sort of why the Tea Party has come into existance. There's a real feeling among many conservative Republicans that their party no longer represents them, and that candidates are telling concervatives what they want to hear in the primary elections, then doing the exact oposite once elected. There's a reason the Tea Party has pushed out people like Bennett in Utah. The Democrats and some in the media have tried to paint the Tea Part as a group of social conservatives, they really aren't. It's very much a libertarian movement aimed at smaller government and lower government spending. There's a reason John McCain had to take about 10 steps to the right in his last election, he was in real danger of losing the primary for a while. There's also a reason why people like Paul Ryan and Jim Demint have found leadership positions in this congress: the Tea Party is showing itself to be a real force in terms of fundraising and organizing. While most Tea Party members don't like Romney, he's considered as the far lesser of two evils. Again, there is a reason why this primary was the harshest seen in decades, Tea Party republicans were really pushing back on the moderate establishment candidates. As far as Romney goes, his commitment to start the repeal process of the healthcare law on day 1 of his presidency has been enough for most conservative republicans and libertarian leaning tea partiers to throw their full support behind him. In their view, the alternative of Obama is far, far, far worse than anything Romney may do or not do. And voting for a third party would almost certainly lead to an Obama victory in this election, just like Clinton's victory in 1992 when many traditional voters crossed over and voted for Ross Perot.
I'll be honest, I don't think the Tea Party is libertarian anymore. It started out that way, but social conservatives hijacked it a while ago. How that happened is BEYOND me, but it did.
|
On May 11 2012 04:06 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2012 03:58 kwizach wrote:On May 11 2012 03:53 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:45 xDaunt wrote:On May 11 2012 03:41 liberal wrote:On May 11 2012 03:33 Mindcrime wrote:On May 11 2012 02:07 TheToast wrote:
Why does someone want to vote republican? Because many people still believe a small government is better, and want lower taxation rates and lower US federal debt. Those people might want to find a different party then. The Republican party knows how to cut taxes, but the modern iteration of the party has absolutely no idea how to cut spending or the debt. Ike was the last Republican president to oversee a shrinking of the debt and the tax rates of his time, which helped to make that possible, aren't something that the Republican party has any intention of returning to. The last Republican to oversee a decrease in total outlays? Warren G. Harding Yep, pretty much this! The Republicans give a lot of lip service to limited government, and all the people who believe in it eat it up and end up supporting this corrupt party. Electing Republicans is probably worse for the nation if you really believe in limited government. So what are they to do? Nothing. Give up politics, move to mars. Statism has won, not even an economic depression will change that fact. I strongly disagree with this statement. Republicans have definitely been bad on the limited government issue since the Bush years, but they are still infinitely better than Democrats. There are significant and growing elements within the Republican party that are serious about limiting and reducing government. There are no such elements within the Democrat party. Think about it this way: whereas republicans are taking us towards the proverbial cliff to financial oblivion at 30 mph, the democrats are taking us there at 100 mph. Look at it this way.... After Bush, the Democrats were assured a victory. There was no way there were gonna lose. And there was no way anyone was gonna fight for limited government or argue for Republicans on that basis after Bush. After Obama the opposite happened. The Tea Party rose up primarily on the issue of debt and limited government. They threw the institutional Republicans out of office and put in Tea Party candidates. Ron Paul's popularity grew larger than ever. So long as the Republicans are in power, they will be worse in the public mind and limited government ideology will be nonexistent. When the Democrats are in power long enough, the public will become sick with them as well and their ideology. So in the long run electing Republicans is probably worse for those who believe in achieving a true limited government candidate in the white house/congress. Of course this theory of mine is somewhat debunked by the fact that Germany and Greece provided a clear dichotomy for Europe, and France elected a socialist. That's why I was saying it doesn't matter what happens honestly... You're going to use the difference between Greece and Germany to criticize the socialist ideas of Hollande? Really? I'm just saying there is a battle in Europe, austerity vs. spending, and Hollande is certainly not a representative of austerity.
Yes, and how the hell is that linked to the dichotomy between Germany and Greece?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
