Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on February 20, 2012, 01:48:20 PM
-
OK, here is the question & some assumptions.
Assuming:
1. Ron Paul is not viable or gets anywhere near the nomination.
2. Newt does not have a third life this political season and continues his pseudo-intellectual self-immolation for the entertainment for those willing to parrot, "Newt is really smart, but..."
3. The GOP nominee must, eventually make nice with the Tea Party-ish elements in the GOP to get the nomination.
Who is the better pick: Romney or Santorum?
I could go on & on about how both are inadequate and not to my tastes. Most of them are equally bad on many, many issues, so it sort of cancels those issues out.
Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.
Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office. He's won more than one political race. He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy. He can speak conservative-ese. (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.) He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.
Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.
To be fair, Romney has the following going for him:
Great hair.
Successful business leader.
Beau coup campaign money.
Snappy dresser.
Great hair.
Of course, neither is yet willing to face the true gravity of the financial situation and propose action like Ron Paul has. Ron Paul's serious flaws (foreign piolicy, illegal immigration(1), insufficient sensitivity to Aggrieved Groups back in the 1980s & 1990s, etc.) sort of fade in the face of Getting the Big Question Right.
My future dream team:
Rand Paul / Allen West
(1) Sure, let in millions more welfare teat suckers and un/semi-skilled wage undercutters who will vote Democrat when amnestied (while trying to reform welfare). What could possibly go wrong? (Quoth the raven, `Nevermore California.')
-
I would add that in recent weeks, Mr. Santorum is not doing a lot to win the female vote. I think the Republican party ignores female voters at their peril. Comments from Mr. Friess about holding aspirin between your knees does not endear Mr. Santorum to many women voters.
-
OK, here is the question & some assumptions.
Assuming:
1. Ron Paul is not viable or gets anywhere near the nomination.
2. Newt does not have a third life this political season and continues his pseudo-intellectual self-immolation for the entertainment for those willing to parrot, "Newt is really smart, but..."
3. The GOP nominee must, eventually make nice with the Tea Party-ish elements in the GOP to get the nomination.
Who is the better pick: Romney or Santorum?
I could go on & on about how both are inadequate and not to my tastes. Most of them are equally bad on many, many issues, so it sort of cancels those issues out.
Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.
Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office. He's won more than one political race. He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy. He can speak conservative-ese. (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.) He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.
Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.
To be fair, Romney has the following going for him:
Great hair.
Successful business leader.
Beau coup campaign money.
Snappy dresser.
Great hair.
Of course, neither is yet willing to face the true gravity of the financial situation and propose action like Ron Paul has. Ron Paul's serious flaws (foreign piolicy, illegal immigration(1), insufficient sensitivity to Aggrieved Groups back in the 1980s & 1990s, etc.) sort of fade in the face of Getting the Big Question Right.
My future dream team:
Rand Paul / Allen West
(1) Sure, let in millions more welfare teat suckers and un/semi-skilled wage undercutters who will vote Democrat when amnestied (while trying to reform welfare). What could possibly go wrong? (Quoth the raven, `Nevermore California.')
i like that especially the "to the left of ted kennedy" bit
i think at this stage a west/paul ticket is better. paul is still too young for me but after a term or 2 as vp? heck that could give ya 16 years
-
Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).
Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature. He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times. Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture. We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.
-
Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).
Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature. He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times. Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture. We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.
Ah yes, Romney because he can win.
This will not, of course, do even MORE to justify the leftward movement within the GOP, will it? No. Of course not
:rolleyes:
-
Ah yes, Romney because he can win.
This will not, of course, do even MORE to justify the leftward movement within the GOP, will it? No. Of course not
:rolleyes:
So, in keeping with the intent of the OP rather than kvetching on GP, you would prefer Santorum? ;)
-
As a Floridian I've already had my chance to vote and although I follow politics daily I didn't feel good enough about any of the candidates to pick one. At this point I'd vote for a dead cat over Obama ... I like your dream team of Rand Paul / Allen West ... why can't we vote for them ? I fear for our country during the next 11 months and I don't believe we can survive Obama winning a second term. I am prepared for the revolution [ar15]
-
Romney, because winning is our first concern (the second will be pushing Romney rightward if he gets into the White House).
Santorum's moral concerns are ultimately relevant, in fact essential--but they are premature. He's not behind the times, he's ahead of the times. Our society is not ready for an adult discussion of what's gone wrong with this culture. We have the predicates of a hundred years of Progressivism informing public thought in America, like it or not.
People say this like they say Newt Gingrich is super-smart. In Gingrich's case, reading Alvin Toffler and regurgitating the wrong predictions of other futurists over four decades in a grandiose and confident manner does not a genius make. IOW, I am not convinced Newt is any more bright than your average Speaker of the House. "Paging Nancy Pelosi..."
In Romney's case, "electability" has been the catch phrase since 2008 when he was the GOP nominee got beat in the primaries by some old economically iliterate old coot with the charisma of a turnip.
Then, there is the inconvenient fact that he was polling in the basement near the end of his first term and elected not to be defeated for his re-election.
IMO, a Romney candidacy will kill GOP turnout. He appeals to no broad demographic. Nobody trusts his born-again pseudo-conservatism. Nobody will trust him when he tacks back toward the center. Social conservatives will stay home in droves.
In his favor, he is very, very pretty.
For my own part, I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary and for whomever the GOP nominates on the theory that I'd vote for a syphilitic camel before I'd vote for Obama. And that going to Hell in a handbasket at a slower pace is better than going to Hell at a faster pace. I am NOT ready for the revolution until my kids are adults.
-
Romney is a non-starter for the simple reason that his candidacy would make all our hell-raising about Obamacare a colossal, egg-facing waste of time. So between the two unsatisfactory candidates, it's gotta be Rick.
I'm expecting another four years of Obama. =|
-
Romney is a non-starter for the simple reason that his candidacy would make all our hell-raising about Obamacare a colossal, egg-facing waste of time. So between the two unsatisfactory candidates, it's gotta be Rick.
I'm expecting another four years of Obama. =|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46454352/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/#.T0LLBs2XRz0
Apparently, the stock market agrees with you. I had always thought that if the economy recovered by the next election and there was no new significant military action, the incumbent would be a shoo-in.
-
If those are the only choices on the GOP menu, I'll be going to a different restaurant....
-
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46454352/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/#.T0LLBs2XRz0
Apparently, the stock market agrees with you. I had always thought that if the economy recovered by the next election and there was no new significant military action, the incumbent would be a shoo-in.
Yes, but who says there will a meaningful economic recovery, and who says we won't see "significant" military action? I think the odds are good that the economy will stall, despite the calisthenics of The Fed, and that the Middle East ignites with unpredictable consequences.
The GOP has a great bench, but our best players can't get onto the court. Not yet anyway. That too could change before November.
-
I can hardly see any circumstance where I would vote for Romney. Either I will vote libertarian or write in Ron Paul. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to a Romney vote.
That longeyes is actually advocating a vote for Romney if he is the nominee is shocking to me to say the least. Romney is the poster child for everything wrong with the Republican party.
-
Sadly, Fistful is correct - we need to prepare for another 4 years of obama.
Romney campaigns like someone who already expects that he is owed the office.
Santorum has not yet figured out that he has a chip in the big game, and needs to act like it.
Newt's ego has not allowed him to recognize that the rest of us are not as enamored with him as he is.
Ron Paul will never have the clout to win.
I am resolved to writing in Daffy Duck at this point.
-
Let me be the first to propose:
We all write in Fistful.
Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.
You saw it here first, folks. I expect a high Cabinet position out of this.
-
Let me be the first to propose:
We all write in Fistful.
Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.
You saw it here first, folks. I expect a high Cabinet position out of this.
So it is written, so let it be done. On my election you shall be created Lord Chancellor of Bacon.
-
Let me be the first to propose:
We all write in Fistful.
Then, the whole country, if not the world, can see it is truly Fistful's fault.
You saw it here first, folks. I expect a high Cabinet position out of this.
No way in Hedoublehockeysticks!
Bacon Tomahawks, bacon mortar rounds, bacon sidewinders, and bacon nukes.
The DoD budget would quintuple.
-
No way in Hedoublehockeysticks!
Bacon Tomahawks, bacon mortar rounds, bacon sidewinders, and bacon nukes.
The DoD budget would quintuple.
But it would be a nice and crispy budget.
-
So it is written, so let it be done. On my election you shall be created Lord Chancellor of Bacon.
My kids, who will not watch most non-Disney/non-cartoon video, will watch the entirety of Cecil B DeMille's Ten Comandments (Heston/Brynner version) without complaint. Just make comments or ask questions as it goes along.
I wonder about that. The get Bible stories at school, so know the deal with Moses. I think that the movie is just that good, that even small children find it compelling.
-
Barack Hussein Obama.
-
I can hardly see any circumstance where I would vote for Romney. Either I will vote libertarian or write in Ron Paul. It will take an awful lot of convincing to get me to a Romney vote.
That longeyes is actually advocating a vote for Romney if he is the nominee is shocking to me to say the least. Romney is the poster child for everything wrong with the Republican party.
Romney is not my first choice. But I do think he has the best chance of winning. Winning the White House is only step one; it would have to be accompanied by conservative militancy to ensure that Romney is not just one more rightwing Progressive. I don't see Santorum, Gingrich, or Paul beating Obama, but that is not because they are bad candidates, just that Obama has the Big Mo with him. The Big Mo is more than incumbency and a fat bankroll; he has the demographics and cultural winds behind him, and he has the media and the press largely in the bag for him. This is why we need people like West, Rubio, Rand Paul, Jindal, and Ryan on stage, not the people we have. But it is what it is. A Romney "win" will not change where America is going, and that is a state of division, chaos, and basic ungovernabilty that won't be solved by politics as usual from either Party. The coming years are going to be tumultuous and dramatic.
-
In the long run it doesn't really matter who gets in.
The end result will be the same, the only difference will be how long it takes.
If Obama stays we'll likely see Syrian style civil unrest within 3 years brought on by an effective collapse of the economy, unemployment in the high 20% range and a curtailing of civil liberties.
If the GOP get in the results will be the same but the timeline will maybe extend out another 2-3 years, maybe.
We are probably be going to be paying $5 a gallon of gas, $6 or more for diesel by the end of June.
Remember when we were paying $2.50 and it was because Bush and big oil were getting rich but now we pay $3.50 and you never hear a word about big oil in the mainstream media?
Inflation is going to accelerate in large part because of the higher cost of transport.
Unemployment is going to start creeping up and the real numbers will still be underreported untill Obama gets voted out then the "real" numbers will be the fault of the GOP.
I'll vote against Obama, but it doesn't matter anymore. It is too late to change the outcome. We can only delay it, maybe.
-
I'm expecting another four years of Obama. =|
Same here. The continuing poll numbers, when you really look at them and consider other outside factors as well, point to this. We're stuck with him.
-
While the rising cost of gasoline makes any thinking voter want a change of administration I have to wonder how many of Obama's voters don't care about the cost of gas because they don't drive and the rising costs caused by transportation expense increases because they don't pay for many of life's necessities.
This same demographic may not care about unemployment or the economy since they may not feel directly affected by them.
-
While the rising cost of gasoline makes any thinking voter want a change of administration I have to wonder how many of Obama's voters don't care about the cost of gas
There is a well-populated demographic of Obama voters that wants fuel to go UP.
-
Ah, fooey. If the Republicans aren't capable of nominating someone decent this time around, that's it. I am not going to support the GOP douchebaggery any longer, even if it means Obama again. The "you have to vote for some one you can't stand or the bad man will win" rhetoric has run it's course. Screw it, it's time to vote with some integrity. Go Third party... or write in someone you actually like.
-
Electability is NOT a good reason to pick a candidate. Why don't we recruit Obama to switch sides and run as a Republican? He is electable after all. His positions don't matter and it apparently doesn't matter if anyone likes him or not.
I think Romney looks electable about like John Kerry did, only on the surface. The more you look at the details, the more you don't like it. I agree with the above comment that Romney will not draw a good turnout from Republicans or conservative minded independents. I don't think he can win without that.
I have heard it pointed out that while Romney looks good in national polling, he looks a lot worse in state by state polling which is how the election goes. The national polling includes a lot of liberal Republicans in states that Republicans won't win anyway.
I don't know how much I really like Santorum, but I think I prefer him over Romney or Obama, but I could that about any of the other candidates. If nothing else, it would stick it in the eye of the Repub establishment that seems hell bent to select Romney as the nominee.
-
Romney, after the beating about the ribs he's taken, may not be able to win either now, that's true, but if we see Obama re-elected and we do not take control of Congress, all of us here had better go to Plan C because people like ourselves will be on the "hunt and bag" list sooner than we wish to believe.
Those who want to stand back and be "neutral" or make a protest vote need to understand that they are voting for nothing less than civil war or self-imposed serfdom. Does it not make more sense to buy time and build the awareness that, realistically, is still lacking in our ranks?
-
I don't think either of the candidates listed in the OP have a realistic chance of beating Obama. Romney because he's near universally despised by all parts of the conservative base and "Anyone but X" is not a generally succesful strategy. Santorum because he's despised by the libertarian-ish parts of the conservative base, and because he could actually energize the Democratic base. Most D's right now are pretty dispirited with Obama. The hardline socialist types because he hasn't brought as radical leftward movement as they want, the squishy center types because he's continued the policies of the person they voted for him to be the "Anybody But" of...
For me, I can't see supporting Romney or Santorum. They are both so repugnant that no matter how awful the alternative choice is I can't in good conscience support them. I think I'll be writing in zombie Calvin Coolidge. Of course there's no way in hell WA is going R anyway, so it's not going to make a difference.
-
I also don't agree with point the third in the OP. If it comes down to a two man race in the primary, most people will vote (albeit in historically low numbers) for one of the two. It's easy to see a candidate not even paying insincere lip service to Tea Party ideals but still securing the nomination.
I think the best possible outcome is Obama winning by razor thin margins with lots of voter fraud. Bush Gore all over again but even more acrimonious. Balance of power in the Congress stays the same or shifts R-ward in a backlash to perceptions Obama stole the election. If we can deadlock fed.gov for four years, stack Congress with actually fiscal conservative types, and run someone who isn't a horrific abomination to freedom and is actually a persuasive poli-critter (cough cough Rand Paul cough cough) there is a small glimmer of hope America won't descend into a 2nd world socialist craphole then collapse into a banana republic dictatorship. But I wouldn't bet on it.
-
.....I think the best possible outcome is Obama winning by razor thin margins with lots of voter fraud. Bush Gore all over again but even more acrimonious. Balance of power in the Congress stays the same or shifts R-ward in a backlash to perceptions Obama stole the election. If we can deadlock fed.gov for four years, stack Congress with actually fiscal conservative types, and run someone who isn't a horrific abomination to freedom and is actually a persuasive poli-critter (cough cough Rand Paul cough cough) there is a small glimmer of hope America won't descend into a 2nd world socialist craphole then collapse into a banana republic dictatorship. But I wouldn't bet on it.
:facepalm: Really??!!?!?! Really??!!?!?!
Obama wins => "...collapse into a banana republic dictatorship."
-
Neither Romney nor Santorum are significantly different than Obama on fiscal issues. Romney would try to manage our collapse better, and Santorum would spend the money differently but neither are willing to even make empty campaign promises about fixing the deficit.
-
These scenarios always imply the poster sitting on the sidelines paring his fingernails...
I think not.
-
These scenarios always imply the poster sitting on the sidelines paring his fingernails...
I think not.
Recently, it has been toenails. Got a real gnarly situation after whacking my wife's backpack with my big toe and killing part of the nail, while it keeps growing in from the nail bed. I won't include pics for the sake of y'all's lunches.
Besides, I already wrote my intent: Vote for Paul in the primary and then Syphilitic Camel (R) Rick Romney (R) in the general.
-
If those are the only choices on the GOP menu, I'll be going to a different restaurant....
I'll save you a seat.
-
:facepalm: Really??!!?!?! Really??!!?!?!
Obama wins => "...collapse into a banana republic dictatorship."
Yeah, that's pretty much out there.
-
Trying to look on the upside, I think, hold on, <cough-retch-shudder> that the better of the two is probably Santorum.
Santorum has actually governed and defended conservative positions while in elective office. He's won more than one political race. He has never run to the left of Teddy Kennedy. He can speak conservative-ese. (Romney speaks conservative-ese like it is a second language.) He might be bright enough to understand that just like the GOP isn't going anywhere if it jettisons the social conservatives, the social conservatives aren't going anywhere without the fiscally and constitutional conservatives.
Given a Tea-Party-tinged Congress, Santorum might be the better choice.
Except Santorum actively dislikes Tea Party types. He is socially conservative. He views fiscal conservatives as on par with gays, women's rights or birth control. If he wins the GOP nomination, I wouldn't count on PA going to him in the election. He's fairly actively disliked here. Again, we voted him out for a reason. I'm also not sure that he wouldn't hold a grudge against PA for throwing him out on his fourth point of contact. Dude is old school GOP, he regarded that office as his entitlement for being loyal to the party.
Romney, I'm pretty sure is a badly programmed robot, possibly an early android prototype found in MIT's basement?
Looks like I'll not be voting for a Presidential candidate, or write in whomever. I cannot vote for Santorum, Romney or Obama. I'm half tempted to vote for Obama, and then all GOP for congress if they promise to veto anything Obama puts on the table.
-
So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster?? [popcorn]
Hey, it's fine with me. I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there. >:D
-
So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster?? [popcorn]
Hey, it's fine with me. I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there. >:D
No, not pleased at all, rather becoming resigned to the prospect that there is no viable, meaningful alternate path.
-
So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster?? [popcorn]
Hey, it's fine with me. I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there. >:D
Please cite one of the Republican candidates that will turn things around? (Ignoring the obvious, but sadly unrealistic, answer of "Either Paul")
An R behind their name is not automatically better. Santorum would be vastly different than Obama, but not better. Worse in some respects, better in others. Balances out nicely to "about the bloody same in the end". Romney is loaded with the same firmware as Obama, with a different body kit.
-
So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster?? [popcorn]
There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.
-
So what you are saying is that if you can't Save the Country in the next 4 years, we might as well give up and stay home (for as long as you have it). Sounds like you really care.
FACT: Even your perfect candidate cannot Save the Country all by himself.
The best option is a Republican win whoever that is. That would indicate to me that the Repubs got out the vote and it would also mean the Repubs make gains in Congress. It is the gains in Congress that are the most important to changing things and rolling back what Obama has done and more. As far as the Candidates, I personally think Santorum is the one of the two that is more likely to support spending cuts.
Giving up because you cannot have perfection is foolish and really just means you are supporting liberal Democrats. Fight for what you can get in the primaries, but make sure you support the best candidate you can get in the general election. Throwing in the towel before the race is over is nuts.
-
Vote for whoever is the R is what got us Obama in the first place. Obama + a R/Tea Party Congress will do far less damage to the country than squishy R + a R Congress. Remember Bush? Think Medicare Part D (to use just one example) would have been pushed through with a Congress eager to get re-elected by opposing the potus?
But nice insults for those who have a different policy choice than yourself. Obviously we just don't care. Only possible reason to not bend over and take it from whichever progressive with an R in front of his name gets nominated.
-
There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.
If you remember the series properly, BOTH philosophies were sent packing in the end.....maybe we need to do the same....
-
A thief was on trial before the King and sentenced to death. The thief asked the King to spare his life. "You don't know it, but I am the greatest teacher in your land. If you spare my life, I promise to teach your horse to sing." The King smirked but accepted the offer. You have a year, and if the horse cannot sing, you will be killed.
Daily, after that, the thief spent his entire day singing hymns to the horse. His friends laughed as they saw him and asked what he hoped to accomplish. "Many things can happen in a year," the thief told them. "The King may die, the horse may die, I may even die. Or, ... maybe the horse will learn how to sing."
Time & space. The more we can put between us and the threat the better.
Besides, who knows? A Tea Party GOP Congress may teach the horse's ass Mitt Santorum to sing.
-
So what you are saying is that if you can't Save the Country in the next 4 years, we might as well give up and stay home (for as long as you have it). Sounds like you really care.
No, what everybody seems to be saying is that if we elect a failcandidate that has an R next to his name, that will actually make Saving the Country [or whatever] harder in the long run.
-
No, not pleased at all, rather becoming resigned to the prospect that there is no viable, meaningful alternate path.
Please cite one of the Republican candidates that will turn things around? (Ignoring the obvious, but sadly unrealistic, answer of "Either Paul")
An R behind their name is not automatically better. Santorum would be vastly different than Obama, but not better. Worse in some respects, better in others. Balances out nicely to "about the bloody same in the end". Romney is loaded with the same firmware as Obama, with a different body kit.
There comes a time when rooting for the Shadow philosophy is better than rooting for the Vorlon philosophy. The GOP candidates will only make the slide into socialism a little slower, and voters simply become frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up. Sometimes the only way to get real change (and not the Obama kind) is to get shoved into the boiling water. That'll wake you up right quick.
It seems to me reducing the size and spending of the govt. has been a major point of debate in past months.
Santorum seems to be a little ahead of the game compared to Romney on this, but his recent surge is apparantly cooling off. Gingrich had been promising on more than one occasion but he has his own demons.
Some people appear to think that the best republicans (conservatives) can hope for is to "make the slide into socialism a little slower, ...(making the) voters simply ... frogs in water, happily sitting in the pot on the stove while the heat is turned up."
Even if that is all that can be done would it not be more moral to delay a process that leads to an evil outcome than hasten it?
Normally I am not so glum about things .... but I will admit after visiting this site I usually leave in a blue funk.
-
Romney and Santorum talk about fiscal preservation with the same seriousness that Obama talked about increased fed.gov transparency. Santorum wants to increase fed.gov involvement he just wants to do it in a different way. Romney has flatly stated he won't touch Medicare or Social Security, and that he'll expand the "social safety net" if he feels it's needed.
Of course any GOP candidate will say "I want to reduce spending!" But if you look at their actual proposals, and compare them to both what is needed and what they would likely do...
-
You convinced me.
I admit it: WE'RE DOOMED. :'(
-
So I take it everyone is pleased as punch with the idea of Obama getting a second term and America falling into third world despotism that much faster?? [popcorn]
Hey, it's fine with me. I have my preps & my gunz.
It should be very entertaining.
Especially for those of us with less to live for than some others out there. >:D
Happy? I think you know better. However, if the choice is faster (during our lifetimes) or slower (leaving it to our kids), I'd say yeah, there're probably quite a few who say, "If it's inevitable, then bring it on, let's get this over with."
If the choice for the (R) wing of the Modern American Political Machine is Romney or Santorum, the direction we're headed will remain essentially the same (a few particulars will swing one way or the other, based on the prejudices of the particular candidate and the liberties he wants to see infringed) while the brakes might get tapped once, maybe twice. Headed to hell in a handbasket is no better at 110 than it is at 120-130. Count me out.
If the (R) wing nominates Romney or Santorum, I'll write in Paul or vote for Johnson (L). I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THE (so-called) LESSER OF TWO EVILS. All a vote for either of the two leading (R) candidates tells the Republican wing is that you *LIKE* those choices - so we'll get MORE of those types. If you truly believe those jackwagons will be the best possible choice for our country, go ahead and vote for them. If you believe that they won't do jack to actually fix things, then vote for someone else, for God's sake! Send the (R)'s an unmistakable message - "Give us better candidates, NOW." Voting for more-of-the-same has gotten us, unsurprisingly, more of the same. We need a REAL change.
-
So what you are saying is that if you can't Save the Country in the next 4 years, we might as well give up and stay home (for as long as you have it). Sounds like you really care.
Correct. I really care. Thus I am not staying home. I am voting for the candidate who best mirrors what I believe, whether he has an "R" next to his name or not. I voted using your "best option" for nearly thirty years. No more.
-
No, what everybody seems to be saying is that if we elect a failcandidate that has an R next to his name, that will actually make Saving the Country [or whatever] harder in the long run.
Yup.
-
No, what everybody seems to be saying is that if we elect a failcandidate that has an R next to his name, that will actually make Saving the Country [or whatever] harder in the long run.
What electing an R does is BUY US TIME. Nothing more. But buying time is important. We are going to need a militant and large and organized conservative movement that has both clarity and resolve. We are going to need a powerful civil rights movement willing to lay it all on the line. We are going to have to accept that fact that civil disobedience may be necessary to make ourselves properly heard and respected. Do we have this now? No. Will re-electing Obama be the cold bath that will expeditiously create all the aforementioned? Doubtful.
-
4 years of Romney or Santorum will not result in conservative types getting ready to fight Civil War II.
-
But it may buy the time needed to AVERT Civil War II. That is my point. There are things that haven't been tried yet, as I mentioned.
-
What electing an R does is BUY US TIME. Nothing more. But buying time is important. We are going to need a militant and large and organized conservative movement that has both clarity and resolve. We are going to need a powerful civil rights movement willing to lay it all on the line. We are going to have to accept that fact that civil disobedience may be necessary to make ourselves properly heard and respected. Do we have this now? No. Will re-electing Obama be the cold bath that will expeditiously create all the aforementioned? Doubtful.
Electing the RIGHT (R) might buy us time to effect the change we need, to start the country back towards governance in accord with the Constitution. Electing Mr. Mitt Obama-lite or Mr. Rick Theocrat, simply because they have an (R) by their name on the ballot, will not help this nation in the slightest - not even by buying time. On the contrary - they'll hasten the collapse. Do not validate the powers-that-be, in both wings of the Modern American Political Machine, by telling them that their pitiful offerings are okay. Demand better.
-
I do demand better, but what I demand is that WE go about building a mass civil rights movement that will then find its valid representatives. None of the people running--none--are going to do anything to slow the unraveling.
Frankly, no matter who reaches the White House in November the facts on the ground remain: the nation is ungovernable and riven to the marrow. Neither Romney nor Santorum nor Gingrich nor Obama will able to achieve anything that requires a majority support in America, and that means whatever happens will happen by force--and be resisted by force.
I'd ask "Is that what you what?" but it doesn't matter, it's going to happen regardless of what either of us wants.