Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dghh70

Republicans

40 posts in this topic Last Reply

Highlighted Posts

I tend to take a "let's just wait and see" attitude to this sort of thing. I don't get to vote in primaries so it isn't something I get involved in until the general election, anyway.

What will be interesting to see is if the republicans can produce a candidate who can actually seriously challenge Obama. The nuts seem to be leading the pack unfortunately.

(personally, the most likely outcome for me is that I will find a third party candidate to vote for again)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Took it, Hope it is one of Ron Paul, John Huntsman, Rick Perry or Rick Santorm.

I woulden't vote for Mitt or Bachman, I think they are just there to inject humor in the debate.

I don't know much about Gary Johnson but he might be a possibility.

I really hope Rudy Guliani decides to run.


  Edited by Larks2242  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is Obama had absolutely no chance. :noway: Back to republicans again! :ninja:

Edit: Typo fixed :P


  Edited by jack3oh3  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it wasn't so tragic, I would be vastly amused.

I am an outside observer and am facing a provincial election on October 6th where I can vote for the tax and spend Liberals (the incumbent), the belt-tightening, public service destructive Conservatives, the also-ran-for-at-least-one-more-generation Social Democrats (NDP), or an independent. Since I am dependent on the social programs installed and maintained by the Liberals, I guess I know who to vote for.

By way of explanation about the NDP, they blotted their copy book when they won an election in Ontario and turned out not to be prepared to govern. They made such a mess of it, that Bob Rae, who became Premier of Ontario, has since re-ratted to the federal Liberals, who used to be "The Natural Governing Party" of Canada and are now in third place, having run out of charismatic leaders and sort of Petered out.

My one fear is that you'll get somebody like Rick Perry who reminds me very much of Nehemiah Scudder. Electing him president could spell the end of freedom in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My one fear is that you'll get somebody like Rick Perry who reminds me very much of Nehemiah Scudder. Electing him president could spell the end of freedom in the U.S.

End of freedom umm... you got the wrong party, he would perserve freedom, Bill Clinton was more destructive then Perry could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is Obama had absolutely no chance. :noway: Back to republicans again! :ninja:

I'm not so sure about that. If the republicans put another extremist nutjob on the ticket, the moderators and independents will probably run screaming in the other direction, just like last time.

There are nutjobs and there are screaming ID 10 T errors. A fundamentalist "Christian" GOP ticket should put paid to the Republican party. These guys are getting to be far right of Adolf the Aryan. I suppose they also want an all-white America as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton was more destructive then Perry could be.

Economically yes, Some of his policies indirectly lead to our current economic situation.

Socially Bill was more free.

Im so glad I've become a Libertarian. They allow the Red States to become Red and the Blue States to become Blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if this wasn't so serious it would be funny. It is like a caucus race in Through the Looking Glass. Everyone is running around in circles in order to dry off.

Watching from Canada is a terrifying thing. Obama just threw our economy, which is inextricably tied to yours, under the bus. Now you have all these fundamentalists right wing nuts trying to succeed him. I think they are all Wendel Willkies. Isolationist to the tips of their fingernails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally feel very sorry for traditional Republicans for this coming election. They do not have a candidate that is inline with the center of their voter block, instead they all align with either an extreme anti-government rhetoric (Ron Paul) or very far right non-logical Tea Party. It is rather scary that we could see someone like Perry elected as president. We have so much to lose as a country and someone who is against any type of compromise will do nothing good for us.


  Edited by BarbulaM1  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tea Party does have normal Republicans by the balls. It's hard to believe that the Republican party used to have different beliefs from the Democrats, but still based in fact. The current GOP has completely rejected science and reason, and all their policy is based on populist fear, anger, and ignorance. Ignorance because everything the Obama administration has done has been completely reasonable, and if you go to any expert in the related field, they'll either say that the actions are in the right direction, or that they're not enough (not enough only because the reality of politics prevented more).

But policy and fact don't determine who will be president as much as the economy does, which will factor now more than usual. If the economy improves Obama will win and if it doesn't the Republican candidate will win. It doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is.

The ironic thing is that what the Republican party thinks is good for the economy is actually the complete opposite of what needs to be done, and their actions will/have hurt the economy and helped get them elected. The public, encompassing the entire political spectrum, in general is absolutely ignorant about how most things, including the economy, actually works. This isn't completely unreasonable, since no one has the time to read about every subject that relates to what the government does. The problem though, is that Republicans especially think that science and experts are disconnected liberal elitists, part of a conspiracy, or something else (in other words, complete rejection), so there's no way to even have a fact-based debate about any subject, because fact has been rejected.

So I'm hoping that Europe holds itself together at least until the day after the election, and that in the meantime the president is able to maneuver his way through congress to help improve the economy.

About Ron Paul, the problem with Libertarianism is that people actually really really like what the government does. If you poll people on government or government programs in general they don't like it, but if you poll them on the specifics people actually like that. Aside from the fact that science has shown that most of what the government does is beneficial in some way or another.

Ron Paul has been the leading libertarian for decades, but he still hasn't been able to formulate a response to the scenario which was asked at one of the debates and all the time in general: a young healthy person has chosen not to buy insurance because he probably won't need it. But something happens and he needs expensive medical help. All he can do is stummer and mumble something happier sounding like "personal responsibility" without answering the question. The person would die which is exactly what happened all the time before government as we know it existed. Libertarianism sounds good from an ideological point of view, but from a practical one, the outcome is entirely undesirable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to my personal opinion in politics, I don't want to pick any side. The reason being is that each party promises all sorts of stuff but 90% of the time don't deliver what they said they would do. And besides, when any politician runs for office, everybody makes a big fuss about it and turn it into an overblown popularity contest. I think the South Park episode Douche and Turd completely sums up almost every political campaign...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to my personal opinion in politics, I don't want to pick any side. The reason being is that each party promises all sorts of stuff but 90% of the time don't deliver what they said they would do. And besides, when any politician runs for office, everybody makes a big fuss about it and turn it into an overblown popularity contest. I think the South Park episode Douche and Turd completely sums up almost every political campaign...

Actually both sides fight as best they can to do . During campaigns a lot of the stuff they say can't actually be done because presidents and other politicians can't force congress or anyone else to vote or act a certain way. Even though they say things confidently during campaigns I hope that most people are realistic about what they can actually do. But a politician campaigning can't say something like, "well, I'd like to do all these things but I don't have power to do most of them" because it sounds bad. It doesn't mean that they really don't intend to do all those things, or that they don't have any policy goals, it's just that the format of democracy pushes politicians towards making confident, action-based assertions.

You can avoid picking a side but the reality is that the two parties, and even politicans within the parties, are very different from each other. If you have beliefs, those beliefs will fall somewhere on the political spectrum, and there are candidates, parties, and policies which you prefer over others. And I think that's inescapable. If you believe X, then you should study the candidates and vote that way, because otherwise other people will elect politicians who are fighting to do Y or Z.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an impossible proposition but one which worked in our last general election.

  1. Private lives of politicians are private, no snooping.
  2. Mud-slinging is out.
  3. Run on the issues, not personalities.
The Liberal Party of Canada broke all three of the above rules and wound up being third for the first time ever, reduced to a rump.

The Conservative party of Canada obeyed the rules most of the time and would up with a majority government.

The New Democratic Party rose from third to second and formed the official opposition for the first time ever by following all of these rules.

The Bloc Quebecois preached the same-old, same-old and got what my signature line says about that.

I suspect that this would be utterly impossible in the United States of America, because:

  1. You have only two parties of sweetness and light or light and sweetness.
  2. Most of your politician are poltroons.
And that's the way it is going to go down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public, encompassing the entire political spectrum, in general is absolutely ignorant about how most things, including the economy, actually works.

Eh. Nobody on earth has a damned clue how the economy actually works. True, most people are completely blind on the matter, but even "experts" can only see blurry fuzzy shapes. A nation's and indeed a world's economy is far too complicated a system for anyone to ever model or comprehend, or accurately predict - especially since a lot of it is based not in things which can be measured but in people's emotions.

Anyone who claims they know what's best for the economy is lying for you. Reality, it's a crapshoot.

the problem with Libertarianism is that people actually really really like what the government does.

Why yes, yes they do. Now ask all those people what they think of their taxes and see what they say.

See, everyone loves receiving government benefits but no one likes paying for them. Someone who believes in small government has merely recognized this hypocrisy and called BS on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes are the Price of Government. You have to decide what you can afford. The government should not be allowed to go adventuring with your money. The business of the government is to govern, not support other governments, outside peoples, etc. The business of empires is to control outside things. The United States needs to make up its mind what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taxes are the Price of Government. You have to decide what you can afford. The government should not be allowed to go adventuring with your money. The business of the government is to govern, not support other governments, outside peoples, etc. The business of empires is to control outside things. The United States needs to make up its mind what it is.

The Founding Fathers had already decided this, Federal Government was designed to deal in mostly foreign affairs. The States themselves are to provide the domestic care. Since in reality the United States is really an alliance of 50 smaller countries locked in a permanent alliance. Though the Founding Fathers thought this "alliance" would break one day, in fact they'd be amazed the Union still exists. If you think I'm lying read the "The Federalist Papers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The past few years, the Republicans have come up more and more like a party whose primary goal is not to lead the country, but making sure the Democrats don't, no matter what. They just seem to block any process the Democrats propose, fling poo like annoyed monkeys, employ logic that would make Internet trolls nod approvingly and whine like preteen brats whenever they don't get things their way. Then blame the Democrats for not doing anything. They might be a collection of sane and reasonable people who perhaps could do a great job in the office, but boy, they need to work with their image. Overseas, at least. At the moment, their election strategy seems to consist of "make sure the Democrats don't win".

Could somebody please explain their official values to me? Or reasons to vote for them not involving comparisons, tongue-outs, critisisms or any other references to the other party?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The public, encompassing the entire political spectrum, in general is absolutely ignorant about how most things, including the economy, actually works.

Eh. Nobody on earth has a damned clue how the economy actually works. True, most people are completely blind on the matter, but even "experts" can only see blurry fuzzy shapes. A nation's and indeed a world's economy is far too complicated a system for anyone to ever model or comprehend, or accurately predict - especially since a lot of it is based not in things which can be measured but in people's emotions.

Anyone who claims they know what's best for the economy is lying for you. Reality, it's a crapshoot.

It's not like a button can be pressed and the economy for the next 10,000 years will be accurately predicted, but there are a lot of theories and models that actually do work. There are thousands of economists working hard, and not only that, but government around the world are making decisions every day based on their research. The fed has to decide interest rates and inflation, and there are theories which describe the consequences. What happens if financial institutions or currencies fail, or how to help prevent that, or what stimulative money does (it works btw), and so many other things depend on that knowledge. The theories will go on in any case, but basing policy off of them depends a lot of the time on politicians, and those politicians depend on an electorate that acknowledges expertise related to those areas of policy.

If experts/science don't exist, then what do we do? How do we make our decisions? We could ignore it or dissolve the government, but the economy would still exist, and would continue for better or worse. Or you could say that the economy would do better with no intervention at all, but to say that objectively you'd still need to study it and form a proper theory about it and then suddenly you'd be an economist, who can't be trusted, and we're back to the original question.

the problem with Libertarianism is that people actually really really like what the government does.

Why yes, yes they do. Now ask all those people what they think of their taxes and see what they say.

See, everyone loves receiving government benefits but no one likes paying for them. Someone who believes in small government has merely recognized this hypocrisy and called BS on it.

People will always complain about their taxes, no matter how low they are, because naturally, everyone wants to have as much money as they can. But both taxes and the size of government are the smallest they've been by a huge margin. The size of the federal government in terms of employees is the lowest, at 10% of total employees, compared to in the 30%s in the '50s. Taxes as a percent of GDP are the lowest now, at 14.8% with the post-war average of 18.5%.

"Small government" and "big government" are more myths than anything else. If you ask a conservative when the ideal time in the US was, socially and economically, I'm guessing they'd say the 1950s, or maybe with all the Reagan-talk they'd say the 80s. But whatever their answer, the government was way bigger then than now. Not only is our government the smallest its been in recent history, it's the smallest out our western counterparts. So what size is the right size? Already we have a notably small government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that Abe Lincoln was aware of the Federalist Papers and other works by John Stuart Mill and his contemporaries. However, he founded the GOP, and I think he would now be utterly disgusted with it. Let's assume the founding fathers were right. Do you suppose any state or group of states would ever succeed in seceding from the union now after the Civil War? I think that no matter what the founders thought, they could never have foreseen that the country would become divided then stitched back together by the bloodiest war ever fought. Meanwhile, your pork-barreling congress has virtually destroyed the intent of the founders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites