Ohio Chatter DEV

O-Trap

I don't think they'll vote for through Big 'O', but they won't be voting Romney or Newt either.

I can't say Paul is the only one who would beat Obama, since your average voter is not likely that politically tuned in (rather watch the Kardashians than C-SPAN), which makes them unpredictable. It also fuels the "need" to reach them via propaganda.

However, it does seem that Paul would be the surest bet. Republican votes + Fiscally conservative independents + non-interventionalist independents + Disgruntled Democrats = a sizeable force for Big O to overcome.

Problem is, Paul panders less to the current neo-Conservatives in the Republican Party so getting elected THERE would be the difficult part ... probably more difficult than winning the gen-el, even.

Cleveland Buck

O-Trap;994601 wrote:I don't think they'll vote for through Big 'O', but they won't be voting Romney or Newt either.

I can't say Paul is the only one who would beat Obama, since your average voter is not likely that politically tuned in (rather watch the Kardashians than C-SPAN), which makes them unpredictable. It also fuels the "need" to reach them via propaganda.

However, it does seem that Paul would be the surest bet. Republican votes + Fiscally conservative independents + non-interventionalist independents + Disgruntled Democrats = a sizeable force for Big O to overcome.

Problem is, Paul panders less to the current neo-Conservatives in the Republican Party so getting elected THERE would be the difficult part ... probably more difficult than winning the gen-el, even.

They won't vote for Obama. I just said they would rather vote Obama than Newt or Mitt. They won't vote for either one.

O-Trap

fish82;994588 wrote:Who said I'm not voting for Paul? I happen to think he's by far the most fiscally sound of the bunch. If he'd dial back on the semi-nutty foreign policy a tad, he'd probably be a slam dunk winner IMO.

Anyhoo...Obama's re-election has little if anything to do with his TBD opponent. It's quite simple really...if his approval rating is 47% or higher on 11/6/12, then he's a good bet to slide across for a 2nd term. If it's below 47%, then he's out.

Thing about Paul is that his policy in general is holistic. His foreign policy, in a nutshell, is to avoid military conflicts that aren't immediately and directly vital to the survival of the US. The fuel for his foreign policy IS his fiscal policy. To bend on one is to bend on the other. The more aggressive your foreign policy (as it pertains to active involvement in foreign affairs), the less fiscally conservative you have to be in order to pay for that involvement.

Nevermind the money that is also being spent from the incomes of people stationed elsewhere. Imagine if the military were all spending their paychecks here in the US. Think of the boost that could have on the economy.

fish82

O-Trap;994620 wrote:Thing about Paul is that his policy in general is holistic. His foreign policy, in a nutshell, is to avoid military conflicts that aren't immediately and directly vital to the survival of the US. The fuel for his foreign policy IS his fiscal policy. To bend on one is to bend on the other. The more aggressive your foreign policy (as it pertains to active involvement in foreign affairs), the less fiscally conservative you have to be in order to pay for that involvement.

Nevermind the money that is also being spent from the incomes of people stationed elsewhere. Imagine if the military were all spending their paychecks here in the US. Think of the boost that could have on the economy.

A fair point to be sure...it would indeed provide a boost. I know his policies dovetail to an extent...and I'm all for scaling down the military as much as is prudent (keeping in mind the hundreds of thousands of jobs currently tied to the MIC) and reigning in our presence abroad. I just think he goes a little far for my taste...and the "it's our fault they hate us" schtick, although possessing a smallish grain of truth, isn't worth putting out there with the damage it does to his cause.

QuakerOats

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

Gingrich 45
obama 43

In the end I think it will be Gingrich 54; obama 42; other 4

The arse kicking will be thorougly enjoyable.

wgh raider

thats not happening!!LOL!!! keep dreamin!!!

O-Trap

QuakerOats;994891 wrote:http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

Gingrich 45
obama 43

In the end I think it will be Gingrich 54; obama 42; other 4

The arse kicking will be thorougly enjoyable.

Can't say I agree. If/When it gets to those two in the election (Newt and Romney are interchangeable), the American people will already be the biggest losers.

Cleveland Buck

If the media ever gets around to covering Newt's record he won't stay ahead of Obama in any polls. He supports health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, strict gun control, repealing the Constitution, drug testing all Americans, he made millions lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, dodged the draft, and was the first Speaker of the House to ever be fined and reprimanded on ethics violations. If his record gets any coverage I can't see anyone voting for him.

I Wear Pants

fish82;994588 wrote:Who said I'm not voting for Paul? I happen to think he's by far the most fiscally sound of the bunch. If he'd dial back on the semi-nutty foreign policy a tad, he'd probably be a slam dunk winner IMO.

Anyhoo...Obama's re-election has little if anything to do with his TBD opponent. It's quite simple really...if his approval rating is 47% or higher on 11/6/12, then he's a good bet to slide across for a 2nd term. If it's below 47%, then he's out.

Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

pmoney25

Yea but he is funny and a Historian, that should outweigh all that other stuff you are talking about.

Cleveland Buck

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

It is nuts to think that these countries resent us bombing them and propping up their brutal dictatorships. It is nuts to think that we can't print money indefinitely to pay for our global empire.

QuakerOats

Cleveland Buck;994957 wrote:If the media ever gets around to covering Newt's record he won't stay ahead of Obama in any polls. He supports health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, strict gun control, repealing the Constitution, drug testing all Americans, he made millions lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, dodged the draft, and was the first Speaker of the House to ever be fined and reprimanded on ethics violations. If his record gets any coverage I can't see anyone voting for him.

I don't believe any of that, nor do I think it is true whatsoever. He is a real conservative who can and will destroy obama --- what more could you ask for.

PS -- he did not "lobby" for Fannie; he was hired as a private consultant to examnie their business model and make recommendations --- BIG difference.

http://www.newt.org/solutions

fish82

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

1. The aforementioned "it's our fault they attacked us." Nutty.

2. Voted against the bill in 2007 that dealt largely with helping Africa/Darfur reign in the spread of AIDS and improve general health conditions. Nutty.

3. Shut down Gitmo. Nutty.

4. Calls our support of our only true ally in the Middle East "meddling." Nutty.

5. Paul was the only member of the House to vote against a 2006 resolution condemning religious persecution in China. Nutty.

6. Cosponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which, if passed, would have stopped the troop surge in Iraq. Nutty.

That took about 10 minutes. The list is lengthy.

Look, I get that we need to dial back our level of worldwide intervention. He's just a tad over the top with some of his positions...and his (IMO) overly isolationist views are what will prevent him having a legit crack at POTUS.

fish82

Cleveland Buck;994957 wrote:If the media ever gets around to covering Newt's record he won't stay ahead of Obama in any polls. He supports health care mandates, cap-and-trade legislation, strict gun control, repealing the Constitution, drug testing all Americans, he made millions lobbying for Fannie and Freddie, dodged the draft, and was the first Speaker of the House to ever be fined and reprimanded on ethics violations. If his record gets any coverage I can't see anyone voting for him.

He's been in politics for 30 years, bro. The media has covered his record ad nauseum. Have you been sans television for the past few decades?

I Wear Pants

fish82;995072 wrote:1. The aforementioned "it's our fault they attacked us." Nutty.

2. Voted against the bill in 2007 that dealt largely with helping Africa/Darfur reign in the spread of AIDS and improve general health conditions. Nutty.

3. Shut down Gitmo. Nutty.

4. Calls our support of our only true ally in the Middle East "meddling." Nutty.

5. Paul was the only member of the House to vote against a 2006 resolution condemning religious persecution in China. Nutty.

6. Cosponsored the Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007, which, if passed, would have stopped the troop surge in Iraq. Nutty.

That took about 10 minutes. The list is lengthy.

Look, I get that we need to dial back our level of worldwide intervention. He's just a tad over the top with some of his positions...and his (IMO) overly isolationist views are what will prevent him having a legit crack at POTUS.

The bolded ones I disagree with you about them being nutty. The others I don't know enough about to comment on.

He isn't isolationist. Not bombing erbody != isolationist.

Cleveland Buck

fish82;995077 wrote:He's been in politics for 30 years, bro. The media has covered his record ad nauseum. Have you been sans television for the past few decades?

Ok, if the media from this century gets around to covering his record. No one remembers what they covered 20 years ago.

fish82

Cleveland Buck;995089 wrote:Ok, if the media from this century gets around to covering his record. No one remembers what they covered 20 years ago.

The statement stands. I'm not sure what you qualify as "media," but the Big 3 broadcast networks and CNN have been pretty much kicking the shit out of him for the past 3 weeks. And yet in today's polling, he's the only one beating Bam head to head.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups

Cleveland Buck

QuakerOats;995058 wrote:I don't believe any of that, nor do I think it is true whatsoever. He is a real conservative who can and will destroy obama --- what more could you ask for.

PS -- he did not "lobby" for Fannie; he was hired as a private consultant to examnie their business model and make recommendations --- BIG difference.

http://www.newt.org/solutions

Come on now. Vet your candidate. We all complained that people couldn't see Obama for what he really is because they didn't bother to research his real positions on the issues and just took him at his word.

Newt Gave Push To Clients, Not Just Ideas
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/30/us/politics/gingrich-gave-push-to-clients-not-just-ideas.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hp

Overall Scumbag / Climate Change Commercial with Nancy Pelosi
http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/gingrich-latest-phony-to-rise-in-polls/

Long History of Supporting Gun Control
http://www.nationalgunrights.org/the-inconvenient-truth-about-newt/

Supports Mandatory Carbon Caps
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/gingrich.html

Newt on O' Reilly Supporting Singapore-Style Drug Testing for All Americans
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/gingrich-we-should-have-singapore-st

Newt: We need to be aggressive with Cuba, topple their government by 2014.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-drug-laws-entitlements-campaigning-yahoo-news-152936251.html

Newt the Draft Dodger Supported the Vietnam war after the fact
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-11-27/opinion/op-2138_1_newt-gingrich

Newt Gingrich’s Record: Uncomfortable But True
http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/11/newt-gingrichs-record-uncomfortable-but-true/

jhay78

I Wear Pants;994988 wrote:Please elaborate. Give some examples of his "nutty foreign policy".

Cleveland Buck;995024 wrote:It is nuts to think that these countries resent us bombing them and propping up their brutal dictatorships. It is nuts to think that we can't print money indefinitely to pay for our global empire.

What's nuts is the "But for America" version of foreign policy. It's one thing to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Middle Easterners might resent the US. It's wholly another to hand a few excuses to the mass-murdering thugs who hatched and carried out 9/11. And he hasn't said it once or twice; he's doubled and tripled down on that sentiment multiple times.

Either mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians via the most cowardly acts of terrorism is sick, repulsive, and morally disgusting, or it's because America "propped up" the Saudi dictatorship and is therefore excusable and understandable. Ron Paul seems to agree with the latter. That's not conservative, that's not constitutional, that's "He made me do it" applied to foreign policy.

When I was a child, avoiding punishment for my actions via the "He made me do it" argument never worked. If I haul off and burn my neighbor's house down because he was mean to my dog, I get prison time, not sympathy from a judge.

You don't have to agree with or endorse every single American foreign policy action over the past century (I certainly don't) to see that Ron Paul's views on national security and foreign policy went off the tracks a long time ago. And I don't have time to get into the offering friendship to Iran comment he made on Chris Wallace's show a few weeks back.

QuakerOats

Buck, ask the NRA who they would rather have as president - Newt or obama; ask the energy industry who they would rather have; ask the military who they would rather have as commander-in-chief; ask the National Taxpayers Union who they would prefer; ask the CPAC who they prefer; ask those in favor of a balanced budget who they want (after all it was Newt and Kasich who actually DID IT).

I am sure there are ways to intrepret various positions but there is simply no comparison between Newt and obama --- one is FOR America, for free market capitalism, for limited government, for fiscal sanity; and the other of course is anything but.

Cleveland Buck

jhay78;995187 wrote: Either mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians via the most cowardly acts of terrorism is sick, repulsive, and morally disgusting, or it's because America "propped up" the Saudi dictatorship and is therefore excusable and understandable. Ron Paul seems to agree with the latter. That's not conservative, that's not constitutional, that's "He made me do it" applied to foreign policy.

What the fuck are you talking about? He didn't excuse 9/11. He voted for the authority to get the people behind it, because just because we bombed them and occupied their holy land and agitated them doesn't give them the right to kill 3,000 innocent civilians. That still doesn't mean we couldn't have prevented it by staying out of their affairs.

If you feel we should be the policemen of the world and a global empire, then that is your opinion. Just don't claim to be fiscally conservative.

Cleveland Buck

QuakerOats;995197 wrote: I am sure there are ways to intrepret various positions but there is simply no comparison between Newt and obama --- one is FOR America, for free market capitalism, for limited government, for fiscal sanity; and the other of course is anything but.

If you would read up on your boy you would see that this is an outright lie. He is for a world government, socialism and fascism, totalitarian government, endless wars, and bankruptcy.

I Wear Pants

jhay78;995187 wrote:What's nuts is the "But for America" version of foreign policy. It's one thing to provide a reasonable explanation as to why Middle Easterners might resent the US. It's wholly another to hand a few excuses to the mass-murdering thugs who hatched and carried out 9/11. And he hasn't said it once or twice; he's doubled and tripled down on that sentiment multiple times.

Either mass-murdering thousands of innocent civilians via the most cowardly acts of terrorism is sick, repulsive, and morally disgusting, or it's because America "propped up" the Saudi dictatorship and is therefore excusable and understandable. Ron Paul seems to agree with the latter. That's not conservative, that's not constitutional, that's "He made me do it" applied to foreign policy.

When I was a child, avoiding punishment for my actions via the "He made me do it" argument never worked. If I haul off and burn my neighbor's house down because he was mean to my dog, I get prison time, not sympathy from a judge.

You don't have to agree with or endorse every single American foreign policy action over the past century (I certainly don't) to see that Ron Paul's views on national security and foreign policy went off the tracks a long time ago. And I don't have time to get into the offering friendship to Iran comment he made on Chris Wallace's show a few weeks back.

Who has said "we made them do it"?

No one, not Paul, not me, not anyone sane has said that 9/11 was justified. But anyone who pretends that we couldn't have taken measures to prevent it (that don't include molesting our citizens) is lying to themselves. Those same people would have us continue policies that make people resent us and with good reason.

It isn't an either or thing. You can think that mass murdering civilians is disgusting and also know that we propped up dictatorships in the region and gave weapons to people who we knew weren't good guys just because it was expedient with our then foreign policy of "give help to anyone Russia doesn't like".

What's wrong with offering friendship? You don't have to support them in all their endeavors? But your much more likely to be able to influence a person or a country by saying "I don't agree with you on many of your stances but we need not be hostile towards each other". Unless you think our "I swear to Christ I will bomb the fuck out of you if you don't do what I say" method has been particularly effective.

Then there's the little things we do in addition to that like using cluster bombs. There's no excuse for them, they are unconscionable and any civilized country would not use them.

believer

The only way Obama will beat any - and I mean any - of the Repub candidates is if the economy rebounds significantly in the next fiscal year leading into the general election.

Suffice it to say all of the Repub candidates including your squeaky clean Dr. Paul have their political pimples. None of these gentlemen are what I would consider an ideal or attractive candidate. But ALL of them would be far, far preferable to what we currently enjoy. That's just a simple fact.

All of you die-hard Paulists kill me. While he may indeed be the best fiscally conservative candidate in the mix, the man simply isn't electable at the national level. He lacks charisma, karma, sex appeal, whatever to do it due to the pea-brained Kardashian-effect Otrap mentioned above. He simply will not be the Repub nominee short of Divine Intervention nor will he EVER become POTUS. Nevertheless I'll join you in voting for him in the primary.

For all of you who think the media will have a field day with Newt's transgressions, you are correct. But we now live in a world where the POTUS can get blow jobs by interns in the Oval Orifice, lie about it, and still get re-elected. Newt's personal issues won't be enough for Obama to beat him unless the economy bounces back SOON.

Romney is Obama-lite but when it comes right down to it, he's still a far more attractive candidate than the inexperienced, narcissistic media darling who thought the Bammer had what it takes to lead the greatest country the world has ever known.

I'll be voting for Paul in the primary but know that I will be pulling the lever for Newt or Mitt in the general election.

God bless Amerika.

I Wear Pants

He's not the "best fiscally conservative candidate in the mix" he's the only one.

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012