Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Republicans 2012

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 11:11:41 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's getting closer to that time...ELECTION TIME!!! One year from now, most of the major Republican candidates will have announced their intentions for the presidency. Doesn't it seem like '08 was just yesterday?

So, anyway...who would you like to see running for the Republican nomination...and who would you least like to see running for the Republican nomination. What candidates have the strongest chances of winning? Can Republicans win in 2012?

My FAVS are:
1) Haley Barbour, Govenor of Mississippi
2) Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts and 2008 Presidential Candidate
3) George Pataki, former Governor of New York
4) Jon Kyl, Senate Minority Whip from Arizona

My least FAVS are:
1) Ron Paul, Represenative from Texas and 2008 Presidential Candidate
2) Rand Paul, 2010 Kentucky Senate Candidate
3) Sarah Palin, former Governor of Alaska and Vice Presidential Candidate in 2008
4) Marco Rubio, 2010 Florida Senate Candidate
5) Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 Presidential Candidate

The bottom line is that the Republican party needs to nominate a moderate who can appeal to conservatives, moderates, and dissapointed Democrats. They need to stay clear of Bible-toting conservatives and Tea Party'ers. 2012 is shaping up to be one of the closest presidential elections, and it will probably turn out more like 2000 than 2004 or 2008.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 12:05:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Out of all your choices, I only agree with Romney, but only just. I've been reading a book that went over the 2008 election campaigns and candidates, and Romney is kind of a tool. He flip flops like I've never seen before.

And why so quick to brush off Huckabee? I wouldn't call him an "extremist," but typical of the usual Republican establishment's southern candidates, but a little more level-headed. History and trends are on his side, even over Romney.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 1:44:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 12:05:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
Out of all your choices, I only agree with Romney, but only just. I've been reading a book that went over the 2008 election campaigns and candidates, and Romney is kind of a tool. He flip flops like I've never seen before.

And why so quick to brush off Huckabee? I wouldn't call him an "extremist," but typical of the usual Republican establishment's southern candidates, but a little more level-headed. History and trends are on his side, even over Romney.

I wouldn't vote for Romney ever. What a phony he is. It's one thing to flip flop on a particular issue, which is bad enough, but to flip flop on your entire ideology for the sole purpose of furthering one's political career is just too much for me. He was our governor and pretended to be, or maybe even was, a fairly liberal republican - implemented a failure of a compulsory insurance plan, presided over a boondoggle of a tunnel project, then skipped town in a blur to run for president, at which time he became uber conservative. He has nice hair though.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:34:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Obama is turning out to be a phony.

Turning out to have a White House full of Chicago Style Politics. (a fairly dirty, underhanded political scene.)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:34:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:31:40 PM, comoncents wrote:
I like Gary E. Johnson.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Johnson is a longshot, simply because of the party dynamics, but I agree, he would be very successful as a candidate. Might not beat Obama, but would more than give him a run for his money.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:35:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:34:17 PM, comoncents wrote:
Obama is turning out to be a phony.


Turning out to have a White House full of Chicago Style Politics. (a fairly dirty, underhanded political scene.)

Oh, whatever, like every other politician in the United States doesn't practice "dirty underhanded" politics. It's the nature of the job, you know.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:36:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:34:17 PM, comoncents wrote:
Obama is turning out to be a phony.

The vid is obligatory.

I agree with the Gary Johnson sentiments.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:37:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:35:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
Oh, whatever, like every other politician in the United States doesn't practice "dirty underhanded" politics. It's the nature of the job, you know.

Indeed. The nature of the job of child sex traffickers is similar across the spectrum as well. :)
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:37:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:35:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:34:17 PM, comoncents wrote:
Obama is turning out to be a phony.


Turning out to have a White House full of Chicago Style Politics. (a fairly dirty, underhanded political scene.)

Oh, whatever, like every other politician in the United States doesn't practice "dirty underhanded" politics. It's the nature of the job, you know.

But not many of them run on a campaign of flushing it out than becoming what they spoke out against.

It does not matter what other presidents have done. He was suppose to be different. He was suppose to be "The Man" to change it all. He failed!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:38:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:37:07 PM, Nags wrote:
Indeed. The nature of the job of child sex traffickers is similar across the spectrum as well. :)

You could say the same about CEOs, stock traders and hedge fund managers. Equivocation is quite fun.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:37:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
But not many of them run on a campaign of flushing it out than becoming what they spoke out against.

Ha. How many Congressional and Senatorial candidates say they'll go to Washington to clean up politics, yet only turn around and become involved in the gritty, dark details that surrounds Washington DC? It's just how politics runs, unfortunately. You can get accountability, you can strive for transparency, but no matter what happens, this sort of stuff will go on. Wherever the light doesn't shine at the moment is where it'll happen.

It does not matter what other presidents have done. He was suppose to be different. He was suppose to be "The Man" to change it all. He failed!

Of course it matters what others do. Obama isn't a singular microcosm separate from the realities of politics. His administration was ambitious and stupid to think it could do everything it wanted and said. The same label can be attached to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, etc.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:44:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:38:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
You could say the same about CEOs, stock traders and hedge fund managers.

What wrongs do these people commit?

Equivocation is quite fun.

I don't see it. You defended Obama by saying that being dirty and underhanded comes with the job of a politician. Basically you're saying: if the majority of people X do action Y in Z profession, then it is fine for person A to do action Y in Z profession. If all your friends jumped off a bridge...
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:45:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:41:26 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:37:53 PM, comoncents wrote:
But not many of them run on a campaign of flushing it out than becoming what they spoke out against.

Ha. How many Congressional and Senatorial candidates say they'll go to Washington to clean up politics, yet only turn around and become involved in the gritty, dark details that surrounds Washington DC? It's just how politics runs, unfortunately. You can get accountability, you can strive for transparency, but no matter what happens, this sort of stuff will go on. Wherever the light doesn't shine at the moment is where it'll happen.

It does not matter what other presidents have done. He was suppose to be different. He was suppose to be "The Man" to change it all. He failed!

Of course it matters what others do. Obama isn't a singular microcosm separate from the realities of politics. His administration was ambitious and stupid to think it could do everything it wanted and said. The same label can be attached to Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Johnson, etc.

More of the same. You're not defending Obama. You're just saying that he's dirty just like the rest of the politicians. It's a bad defense, really.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:47:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:44:36 PM, Nags wrote:
What wrongs do these people commit?

What exact wrongs, in the legal sense, not fuzzy moral sense, does government do?

I don't see it. You defended Obama.

Stop right there. I didn't defend Obama - I said its to be expected. I wouldn't defend that. But, comon is saying Obama should've changed all of that. I disagree because I know that kind of culture is pretty hard to root out, and sometimes you need to work with it in order to get anything done.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:47:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:45:34 PM, Nags wrote:
More of the same. You're not defending Obama. You're just saying that he's dirty just like the rest of the politicians. It's a bad defense, really.

There's a reason its a bad defense....
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:49:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:47:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:44:36 PM, Nags wrote:
What wrongs do these people commit?

What exact wrongs, in the legal sense, not fuzzy moral sense, does government do?

Unconstitutional acts, such as regulating interstate commerce, declaring war without consent from Congress, attempting to ban guns in state-run schools, etc.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:50:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:49:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Unconstitutional acts, such as regulating interstate commerce, declaring war without consent from Congress, attempting to ban guns in state-run schools, etc.

I was kind of referring to things within Washington circles, things like K Street, so yeah.... And that last one is just lol x 100.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:51:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:47:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
What exact wrongs, in the legal sense, not fuzzy moral sense, does government do?

Legal sense, ay? So if government made it legal for government to rape anyone it wanted, it would be fine?

If you want legal wrongs, then google: political corruption, or government corruption, or police brutality, or something else like that. Government can cover government's @ss because government makes the laws and government judges rule on the laws. I think you're being a little crazy by saying that something is only wrong if it is illegal.

Stop right there. I didn't defend Obama - I said its to be expected. I wouldn't defend that. But, comon is saying Obama should've changed all of that. I disagree because I know that kind of culture is pretty hard to root out, and sometimes you need to work with it in order to get anything done.

Obama lied, that was his point. Obama did lie. He keeps his point.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:50:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:49:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
Unconstitutional acts, such as regulating interstate commerce, declaring war without consent from Congress, attempting to ban guns in state-run schools, etc.

I was kind of referring to things within Washington circles, things like K Street, so yeah.... And that last one is just lol x 100.

You thinking about the Two-T-Triple-Threat as well?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:53:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Anyways, changing the subject for a moment...

If I'm to be completely honest, I've been rethinking my support for Obama lately. He's been disappointing on quite a few fronts, and while not everything is his fault, I just get the feeling that he's yet to really learn the way to do these things properly.

How many people are surprised by this?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:54:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:50:44 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:49:09 PM, mongeese wrote:
attempting to ban guns in state-run schools

just lol x 100.

mmm... I laughed too... but...

the Fed. govt. doesn't have that right.

the states do
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:54:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:51:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Blah

Look up above post.

Obama lied, that was his point. Obama did lie. He keeps his point.

There's a fuzzy line between "lying" and "being unable to live up to those high standards." I didn't say he never lied, however, so I don't even get how this figures into anything, whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:55:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:52:01 PM, studentathletechristian8 wrote:
You thinking about the Two-T-Triple-Threat as well?

Gotta be honest, not quite sure what you mean.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:56:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:54:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:51:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Blah

Look up above post.

Obama lied, that was his point. Obama did lie. He keeps his point.

There's a fuzzy line between "lying" and "being unable to live up to those high standards." I didn't say he never lied, however, so I don't even get how this figures into anything, whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant.

if he knew he couldn't... and said he could

then that = lying

I have been coming to doubt he even ever planned on trying to live up to those standards
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:57:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:53:23 PM, Volkov wrote:
Anyways, changing the subject for a moment...

If I'm to be completely honest, I've been rethinking my support for Obama lately. He's been disappointing on quite a few fronts, and while not everything is his fault, I just get the feeling that he's yet to really learn the way to do these things properly.

How many people are surprised by this?

I've never been a fan of Obama, so I am glad to have another dissenter.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:58:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:56:57 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
if he knew he couldn't... and said he could

then that = lying

I have been coming to doubt he even ever planned on trying to live up to those standards

Yeah, I've been wondering that as well. I've read interviews where he does seem to have tried, and I know enough politicians try and they get bogged down in that sort of culture, but I mean, he was a Senator, maybe for a short time, but still - he should have known.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 6:59:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:54:46 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:51:46 PM, Nags wrote:
Blah

Look up above post.

Your post about rethinking Obama? That doesn't even attempt to refute anything I said. Anyway... I'm not really surprised you're rethinking Obama. You're swayed pretty easily with the polls. The polls don't like Obama. Thus, you don't like Obama. If the approval rate was around 65 and his policies and actions were exactly the same, I'm sure you'd like him.

There's a fuzzy line between "lying" and "being unable to live up to those high standards." I didn't say he never lied, however, so I don't even get how this figures into anything, whatsoever. It's completely irrelevant.

Obama said he would do X.
Obama didn't do X.
Obama lied.

It doesn't really matter that the expectation for truth was high. He still lied regardless.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/3/2010 7:00:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 6/3/2010 6:51:46 PM, Nags wrote:
At 6/3/2010 6:47:22 PM, Volkov wrote:
What exact wrongs, in the legal sense, not fuzzy moral sense, does government do?

Legal sense, ay? So if government made it legal for government to rape anyone it wanted, it would be fine?

If you want legal wrongs, then google: political corruption, or government corruption, or police brutality, or something else like that. Government can cover government's @ss because government makes the laws and government judges rule on the laws. I think you're being a little crazy by saying that something is only wrong if it is illegal.

Stop right there. I didn't defend Obama - I said its to be expected. I wouldn't defend that. But, comon is saying Obama should've changed all of that. I disagree because I know that kind of culture is pretty hard to root out, and sometimes you need to work with it in order to get anything done.

Obama lied, that was his point. Obama did lie. He keeps his point.

I'm going to interject here. I'm pretty sure what he's saying is NOT that it's ok because everyone else is doing it, but rather that it's hypocritical to think that the politicians you prefer would fair any better on that basis (correct me if I'm wrong Volkov).