Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • dwccrew
    Why? So we can then hear you complain about Romney instead of Obama? Do you really believe Romney will be much different than Obama? They are of the same ilk.
  • believer
    dwccrew;1030237 wrote:Why? So we can then hear you complain about Romney instead of Obama? Do you really believe Romney will be much different than Obama? They are of the same ilk.
    Not true. One is white and has an "R" after his name. Other than that....yeppers.
  • stlouiedipalma
    Doesn't matter who gets the R's nomination and doesn't matter who wins the general.

    Obstructionist politics in Congress is the the tool de jour these days. If Obama wins, the R's will try to block everything he wants. If Romney wins the D's will use the tool to block him.

    Isn't it great that the R's have elevated the simple threat of a filibuster to an art form? Now we can look forward to seeing it from both sides of the aisle.
  • believer
    stlouiedipalma;1030933 wrote:Doesn't matter who gets the R's nomination and doesn't matter who wins the general.

    Obstructionist politics in Congress is the the tool de jour these days. If Obama wins, the R's will try to block everything he wants. If Romney wins the D's will use the tool to block him.

    Isn't it great that the R's have elevated the simple threat of a filibuster to an art form? Now we can look forward to seeing it from both sides of the aisle.
    C'mon....the Repubs hardly perfected the "simple threat of a filibuster to an art form." This tried and true political tactic has been used repeatedly by both sides of the aisle for a long, long time.

    With that said, you are correct about obstructionist policies. This country is very divided politically at the moment and IMHO it hasn't been this divided since the Civil War.

    While it makes my stomach want to hurl, I'm not overly concerned if Obama wins re-election. It'll simply mean that the Repubs will easily retain the House and could take the Senate. If a Repub kicks his ass to the curb, the Dems will most likely regain the House and retain the Senate.

    Then you'll complain about Repubs using veto power as an art form. ;)
  • BGFalcons82
    believer;1031031 wrote:While it makes my stomach want to hurl, I'm not overly concerned if Obama wins re-election.
    What the hell happened over Christmas, man? Did you have socialists invade your abode and stick leaflets all over you while chanting, "Yes we can"?
  • jmog
    stlouiedipalma;1030933 wrote:Doesn't matter who gets the R's nomination and doesn't matter who wins the general.

    Obstructionist politics in Congress is the the tool de jour these days. If Obama wins, the R's will try to block everything he wants. If Romney wins the D's will use the tool to block him.

    Isn't it great that the R's have elevated the simple threat of a filibuster to an art form? Now we can look forward to seeing it from both sides of the aisle.
    Oh good God, please don't act like the dems have never blocked legislation either...your bias is obvious.
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;1031088 wrote:What the hell happened over Christmas, man? Did you have socialists invade your abode and stick leaflets all over you while chanting, "Yes we can"?
    Naw....It's just a simple realization that this country is big time messed up. You and I both know that the Repubs should be able to run a chimpanzee and beat Obama, but look at what we have to choose from. They're all twits including Ron Paul.

    The mainstream media is having a field day with this crap while Barry & Michelle are in Hawaii working on their tans.

    This country is nuts.
  • Tobias Fünke
    dwccrew;1030237 wrote:Do you really believe Romney will be much different than Obama? They are of the same ilk.
    I respectfully disagree.

    Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, so he actually has some legitimate executive experience.

    He demonstrated smaller-scale executive management when he took the disastrous Olympics and turned it around. So in crunch time he can shown that he can manage.

    For several decades he his job was literally to buy companies with shitty economic models and to strip them down and build them correctly. He wasn't a CEO, he was a CEO of CEO's. Who do you trust more to pinpoint where the government is inhibiting economic growth than a guy who built companies for a living? Who better to solve our macro-economic problems then a guy who played at that level?

    His combination of executive experience and private sector success make him nothing like Obama.

    No, he is no libertarian (I'm okay with that, I'm not a Libertarian). So I guess he is like Obama in the sense that he will not eliminate the Government like Paul would (try to) do.

    Romney has also shown that he is a populist and that he will give the people what they want. Right now, the people want a smaller or at the very minimum a better government. He will give you that.
  • believer
    Tobias Fünke;1031883 wrote:I respectfully disagree.

    Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, so he actually has some legitimate executive experience.

    He demonstrated smaller-scale executive management when he took the disastrous Olympics and turned it around. So in crunch time he can shown that he can manage.

    For several decades he his job was literally to buy companies with shitty economic models and to strip them down and build them correctly. He wasn't a CEO, he was a CEO of CEO's. Who do you trust more to pinpoint where the government is inhibiting economic growth than a guy who built companies for a living? Who better to solve our macro-economic problems then a guy who played at that level?

    His combination of executive experience and private sector success make him nothing like Obama.

    No, he is no libertarian (I'm okay with that, I'm not a Libertarian). So I guess he is like Obama in the sense that he will not eliminate the Government like Paul would (try to) do.

    Romney has also shown that he is a populist and that he will give the people what they want. Right now, the people want a smaller or at the very minimum a better government. He will give you that.
    These points are well taken. Romney is far more qualified to be POTUS than Obama.

    However, you didn't mention Romneycare in a state that is so liberal, they probably think Obama isn't left wing enough. I have a hunch that Obamacare will survive in a Romney WH albeit a slightly stripped down version of it.

    Quite frankly a Romney Administration will pretty much be DC politics as usual.

    I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primaries simply to send a message to the Romney campaign. If Romney is the Repub nominee (and it appears that will quite likely be the case), I will certainly pull the lever for him, but I won't be knocking on doors or putting up signs.

    I'm beside myself that this field of candidates is the best the Repubs can do against an inept, unqualified POTUS like Obama.
  • Tobias Fünke
    That's a fair assessment.

    I like to believe that Romney gave the people of his state what they wanted. He governed a liberal state and they got a liberal health plan.

    In fairness to Romneycare, I was under the impression that while Massachusetts health care costs are the highest in the country, they already were the highest pre-Romneycare and that their per capita costs have actually dropped (the most in the country?) since implementation.

    I also think that Romney has a very valid point when he says "The Obama administration modeled their healthcare plan after what I did in Massachusetts, but they never actually contacted me for my opinion on that matter. I never had the opportunity to tell them why ___ is a bad idea and what I would have done with proper hindsight." I think that trumps most argument against Romney.

    Lastly I don't think Romney would support something so unpopular. I believe him when he says he wants the states to make their own models and let us all see what works.
  • believer
    Tobias Fünke;1032429 wrote:That's a fair assessment.

    I like to believe that Romney gave the people of his state what they wanted. He governed a liberal state and they got a liberal health plan.

    In fairness to Romneycare, I was under the impression that while Massachusetts health care costs are the highest in the country, they already were the highest pre-Romneycare and that their per capita costs have actually dropped (the most in the country?) since implementation.

    I also think that Romney has a very valid point when he says "The Obama administration modeled their healthcare plan after what I did in Massachusetts, but they never actually contacted me for my opinion on that matter. I never had the opportunity to tell them why ___ is a bad idea and what I would have done with proper hindsight." I think that trumps most argument against Romney.

    Lastly I don't think Romney would support something so unpopular. I believe him when he says he wants the states to make their own models and let us all see what works.
    If Romney takes the White House and helps eliminate the piece-of-crap legislation commonly known as Obamacare and then asks the states to come up with their own plans, I'll be the first to sing his praises.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1031207 wrote:Oh good God, please don't act like the dems have never blocked legislation either...your bias is obvious.
    The Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster more in 2009 and 2010 than in the 50's, 60's and 70's combined. Obama, despite the majority of his actual policies being more conservative than most of the post war presidents, has faced the kind of obstruction we have not seen because of unfounded assertions that he's some kind of neo-colonialist marxist in disguise.

    Never before has a an opposing party's leader in the Senate openly declared that his goal above all else is to ensure that the president only serves one term as Mitch McConnell did.

    Any obstruction by democrats in recent memory is not comparable.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1035060 wrote:The Republicans in the Senate used the filibuster more in 2009 and 2010 than in the 50's, 60's and 70's combined. Obama, despite the majority of his actual policies being more conservative than most of the post war presidents, has faced the kind of obstruction we have not seen because of unfounded assertions that he's some kind of neo-colonialist marxist in disguise.

    Never before has a an opposing party's leader in the Senate openly declared that his goal above all else is to ensure that the president only serves one term as Mitch McConnell did.

    Any obstruction by democrats in recent memory is not comparable.
    95% of what you just posted was opinion, only the quote by McConnell and the number of filibusters could even be verified with a link. All of the rest is your opinion.

    You have to agree that the left in the last 3 years has been JUST as inflexible as the right. So, if your only option (which wasn't an option for that much of the 3 years, since the Ds had a supermajority in the Senate) to try to hold off something that you vehemently disagree with is to filibuster, then you do it.

    Let's not act like the Senate wasn't 60-40 for pretty much the first 2 years, no excuses there to not "fix" everything as the liberals all told us.

    I'm sure this will cause you to give some 10 paragraph response complete with pie charts and bar graphs proving that your post wasn't mostly opinion, and just like 99% of the rest of the BS you put out no one will read it ;).
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1035478 wrote:You have to agree that the left in the last 3 years has been JUST as inflexible as the right.
    Absolutely not. Even you in your own post are suggesting that the left has not been as inflexible because you say that the right had no other choice because the liberals were proposing things that were so unagreeable (which is of course not true if we actually wanted republicans to be consistent with previous positions. The "left" essentially endorsed the republican policies of a decade ago. They bent over backward to try to get Republicans to compromise on issue after issue...asking members of congress to agree to positions they used to support in previous sessions of congress.

    The republicans were essentially filibustering their own party's ideas.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1035808 wrote:Absolutely not. Even you in your own post are suggesting that the left has not been as inflexible because you say that the right had no other choice because the liberals were proposing things that were so unagreeable (which is of course not true if we actually wanted republicans to be consistent with previous positions. The "left" essentially endorsed the republican policies of a decade ago. They bent over backward to try to get Republicans to compromise on issue after issue...asking members of congress to agree to positions they used to support in previous sessions of congress.

    The republicans were essentially filibustering their own party's ideas.
    Yeah, the liberals were extremely flexible while craming Obamacare down everyone's throats.
    They were extremely flexible in ACTUAL spending cuts during the debt ceiling debate (not promised cuts in 10 years off of baseline spending).

    I have no problem admitting the republicans were unflexible, but you can't be serious with your belief that the democrats were really willing to "play ball" and make compromises.

    Shoot, with Obamacare they had to bribe their own moderate democrats to swallow it, but yet you want to blame republicans for being unflexible.

    You are right though, republicans have changed since 10+ years ago. They have realized that their tax and spend ways of 10+ years ago were wrong (I hope they are not just pandering with this). They are now just waiting for the democrats to see the light.
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1036655 wrote:Yeah, the liberals were extremely flexible while craming Obamacare down everyone's throats.
    They were extremely flexible in ACTUAL spending cuts during the debt ceiling debate (not promised cuts in 10 years off of baseline spending).

    I have no problem admitting the republicans were unflexible, but you can't be serious with your belief that the democrats were really willing to "play ball" and make compromises.

    Shoot, with Obamacare they had to bribe their own moderate democrats to swallow it, but yet you want to blame republicans for being unflexible.

    You are right though, republicans have changed since 10+ years ago. They have realized that their tax and spend ways of 10+ years ago were wrong (I hope they are not just pandering with this). They are now just waiting for the democrats to see the light.
    Everything else I can abide with but this is simply not true.

    The Republicans are not going to reduce spending, they're going to spend it on different things. Sure they'll lower taxes on some people, mostly wealthier people (which isn't always a problem as an inefficient tax isn't good even on super rich folks). TL;DR I don't buy that they want to lower spending. Just change it.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1036960 wrote:Everything else I can abide with but this is simply not true.

    The Republicans are not going to reduce spending, they're going to spend it on different things. Sure they'll lower taxes on some people, mostly wealthier people (which isn't always a problem as an inefficient tax isn't good even on super rich folks). TL;DR I don't buy that they want to lower spending. Just change it.
    If you notice my parenthesis where I said I hope they are not just pandering to voters. Republicans are SAYING they want to drastically reduce spending. One can either choose to believe them or not.

    In general I do not believe them. Of the current Presidential candidates the only ones I truly believe would cut spending would be Paul, Bachman, Huntsman, and Santorum. The others are pandering in my opinion, as are many in Congress.
  • I Wear Pants
    Bachman and Santorum would not reduce spending.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;1037035 wrote:Bachman and Santorum would not reduce spending.
    You are probably right, but they are more convincing in their "pandoring" than say Newt, Romney, or even the current leaders of the Rs in Congress.
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;1037050 wrote:You are probably right, but they are more convincing in their "pandoring" than say Newt, Romney, or even the current leaders of the Rs in Congress.
    I can agree with that. Though I think both Bachman and Santorum are insane people.
  • believer
    I Wear Pants;1037129 wrote:I can agree with that. Though I think both Bachman and Santorum are insane people.
    You've apparently forgotten that insane is in vogue. Look who currently occupies the White House. Look who was formerly the Speaker of the House. Look who runs the Senate. And let's not forget Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Chuckie Schumer, and a host of other loons you lefties love to put in positions of power.
  • I Wear Pants
    believer;1037136 wrote:You've apparently forgotten that insane is in vogue. Look who currently occupies the White House. Look who was formerly the Speaker of the House. Look who runs the Senate. And let's not forget Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Chuckie Schumer, and a host of other loons you lefties love to put in positions of power.
    Once again, didn't vote for Obama so don't look at me.

    And Santorum has said he'd be cool with states making contraception illegal. You've got to be an insane person to believe such a thing is okay. GOP: For individual rights...except when it comes to things we don't like.

    Both sides pull shit like that though, to be fair.
  • BoatShoes
    believer;1037136 wrote:You've apparently forgotten that insane is in vogue. Look who currently occupies the White House. Look who was formerly the Speaker of the House. Look who runs the Senate. And let's not forget Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Chuckie Schumer, and a host of other loons you lefties love to put in positions of power.
    It is Republicans who are insane now. How many times does this have to be hashed out for you? On a policy by policy analysis...foreign and domestic...this person you call insane in Barack Obama has supported policies that are more conservative than most of our post-war presidents. I guarantee you were not calling Richard Nixon an insane socialist when was imposing actual price controls on the nation!
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1036655 wrote:Yeah, the liberals were extremely flexible while craming Obamacare down everyone's throats.
    They were extremely flexible in ACTUAL spending cuts during the debt ceiling debate (not promised cuts in 10 years off of baseline spending).

    I have no problem admitting the republicans were unflexible, but you can't be serious with your belief that the democrats were really willing to "play ball" and make compromises.

    Shoot, with Obamacare they had to bribe their own moderate democrats to swallow it, but yet you want to blame republicans for being unflexible.

    You are right though, republicans have changed since 10+ years ago. They have realized that their tax and spend ways of 10+ years ago were wrong (I hope they are not just pandering with this). They are now just waiting for the democrats to see the light.
    Obamacare is a compromise!!!! It was the Conservative solution to Universal Healthcare. Conservatives used to say that they supported the mandate because it "reframed the debate from healthcare being a right to healthcare being a person's own personal responsibility." Liberals want an integrated system like the VA which is now much more efficient than our largely private healthcare system which is the most inefficient in the world.

    And that's just one part of "Obamacare." The advisory board to try and reign in spending and control the cost of medicare was a conservative id! And then, it gets lambasted as a "death panel." Even Cap and Trade and its pigovian taxes was originally put forth by conservative thinkers

    Nevermind that Obamacare is less socialist than the Medicare part D and the No Child Left Behind Act which not a single republican attorney general challenged as unconstitutional.

    I mean, if John McCain had been elected and Republicans actually did something about healthcare...we can be almost certain that it would have closely mirrored Obamacare...IF NOT MORE LIBERAL...because conservatives never challenge Republicans when they create programs that are more socialist than ones that democrats create.

    And, the only reason Obama had to pander to Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman was because of the Republican filibuster and both of them are essentially republicans and have deviated from what used to be moderate just like the Republicans have. I mean Obama...the liberal prince is offering positions that used to be considered conservative. How can you say Obama has not been flexible...He offered to spurn his whole party and accept cuts to Medicare and Social Security to forge a deal with Boehner...offering more spending cuts than Boehner was going for but who was then undermined by Eric Cantor and the Tea Party people who don't understand that massively slashing the budget now would make growth slow drastically and unemployment go higher....just like in Europe!

    Never in the history of this Republic has a Speaker of the House refused a President's call for a joint session of Congress as John Boehner did. And that is because that all ties in with the the common theme...no matter what Obama does...no matter how conservative...he will face unrepentant opposition from Conservatives who would rather see him be defeated above all else.
  • pmoney25
    Rick Santorum leading Iowa. Smh. Social Conservatives at it again.