View Full Version : Rick Santorum
Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2012, 12:16
Latest polls showing he's now got a huge lead in nationwide polls. Your thoughts on this candidate please. :munchin
Latest polls showing he's now got a huge lead in nationwide polls. Your thoughts on this candidate please. :munchin
What are your thoughts, counselor? :confused:
Richard :munchin
He seems to be the Knot Candidate.
Not Romney, not Gringrich, and NOT Obama.
CloseDanger
02-15-2012, 12:57
He has Character
The Knots are AGAIN splitting the conservative vote.
Ron Paul is the anchor dragging along holding things back. The other two vary back and forth. They keep splitting 60% of the vote and Mittens wins with 40%.
I will vote for one of the three, whoever is still running against Mittens in the NC primary - and then I will vote for the Republican candidate in the general election.
But MR sure is not doing anything to fire up the base.
Tweeder11
02-15-2012, 13:10
I will vote for one of the three, whoever is still running against Mittens in the NC primary - and then I will vote for the Republican candidate in the general election.
But MR sure is not doing anything to fire up the base.
Sir,
I agree 100%, but I think the question is can the other candidates beat Obama? If the answer is no, then can Mitt beat Obama? Unfortunately we are in that position, where it's not just "who's the overall best candidate" , but it's "who can win the election" . It's another one for the KNOTS.
Just my $.02.
Respectfully,
Tweeder
neecheepure
02-15-2012, 13:17
Another candidate who is unable to fire up his "base" without mixing politics and religiion:mad::mad:
craigepo
02-15-2012, 13:17
Here is my own way of judging the present GOP candidates:
1. If either Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich showed up to date my teenage daughter, I would kick either gentleman's ass and ground her for a year for being stupid.
2. If Mitt Romney showed up to date my teenage daughter, I would think something was going on, but wouldn't be too sure what.
3. If Rick Santorum showed up to date my teenage daughter, I'm pretty sure she would be home on time and wouldn't turn up pregnant.
Santorum is the only one I would feel really inclined to vote for because it's him. Not just like I was voting for somebody "against" somebody..er..make sense.
I would vote for Santorum to Vote for Santorum...yeah, there, that's better...
I think he needs to step up a bit, be a bit more assertive, and come out of the background. Develop a "leader type" attitude..
I don't necessarily agree with everything Santorum believes in, but he comes the closest to believing the things I believe in. With the economy on the upswing "supposedly" he really needs to roll out his plan for what he would do as POTUS, as well as start talking about foreign policy. I personally am hoping for a Santorum/Rubio ticket. Mittens might make a good Commerce or Treasury Secretary.
Gingrich needs to get out before we are all subjected to Mittens as the nominee. He is only staying in it now for pride, not because he thinks he can actually win. If he cares ANYTHING about this nation, and not just himself, he will leave before the next set of Primaries on 28 Feb and stop splitting the conservative vote.
I think it would be enjoyable to see a debate between Gingrich and the Chosen One, because he would mop up the stage with Obama, but he has no chance in hell of winning a general election with his baggage.
Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2012, 16:33
What are your thoughts, counselor? :confused:
Richard :munchin
I asked first!
Roguish Lawyer
02-15-2012, 16:35
Here is my own way of judging the present GOP candidates:
1. If either Ron Paul or Newt Gingrich showed up to date my teenage daughter, I would kick either gentleman's ass and ground her for a year for being stupid.
2. If Mitt Romney showed up to date my teenage daughter, I would think something was going on, but wouldn't be too sure what.
3. If Rick Santorum showed up to date my teenage daughter, I'm pretty sure she would be home on time and wouldn't turn up pregnant.
LOL, so would you want any of these guys to be the President?
mark46th
02-15-2012, 16:47
I am a GDI, but have always voted conservative. I will vote for whomever the Republicans put on the ballot. If nothing is at stake and I don't like any of the candidates, I write in Thomas Sowell. But this year, everything is at stake. . Obama is spending this country into a Greek cesspool. Vote him out.
greenberetTFS
02-15-2012, 16:55
Out of all the above mentioned candidates I think this guy has the best chance to beat the "O"...............;) :D
Big Teddy :munchin
Stingray
02-15-2012, 17:02
I don't necessarily agree with everything Santorum believes in, but he comes the closest to believing the things I believe in. With the economy on the upswing "supposedly" he really needs to roll out his plan for what he would do as POTUS, as well as start talking about foreign policy. I personally am hoping for a Santorum/Rubio ticket. Mittens might make a good Commerce or Treasury Secretary.
Gingrich needs to get out before we are all subjected to Mittens as the nominee. He is only staying in it now for pride, not because he thinks he can actually win. If he cares ANYTHING about this nation, and not just himself, he will leave before the next set of Primaries on 28 Feb and stop splitting the conservative vote.
I think it would be enjoyable to see a debate between Gingrich and the Chosen One, because he would mop up the stage with Obama, but he has no chance in hell of winning a general election with his baggage.
Well said. I would also be pleased with a Santorum/West ticket as well.
V/r
Go Devil
02-15-2012, 17:12
I predict that whatever eventually replaces obama will be very similar to obama, a puppet.
Romney is far too progressive for me, Newt burned all his bridges a long time ago. Newt has entertained us long enough and needs to fade into the darkness, if only his ego would allow it. The best thing Santorum has going for him is that he does not have to answer to years and years of political baggage. I would have no problem supporting Santorum, I gotta go along with the if they were dating my daughter logic. In the end it will be the independant vote that decides who the next POTUS will be and IMHO they will not be voting for Obama this time. Anybody but Obama.
I predict that whatever eventually replaces obama will be very similar to obama, a puppet.
Romney is far too progressive for me, Newt burned all his bridges a long time ago. Newt has entertained us long enough and needs to fade into the darkness, if only his ego would allow it. The best thing Santorum has going for him is that he does not have to answer to years and years of political baggage. I would have no problem supporting Santorum, I gotta go along with the if they were dating my daughter logic. In the end it will be the independant vote that decides who the next POTUS will be and IMHO they will not be voting for Obama this time. Anybody but Obama.
Is it going to be another “hold your nose and vote” election? Santorum seems to be the guy that is most appealing to me of the remaining (R) candidates. But I did run across the following tid-bit yesterday, some of which I had heard before. it does make me stop and think. There was a little internet hoax about Judge Napolitano getting fired due to some comments he made (his show was CXed due to low ratings…he still works for Fox). The following is the text of the “What if” monologue from one of Napolitanos Freedom Watch shows:
What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?
What if elections were actually useful tools of social control? What if they just provided the populace with meaningless participation in a process that validates an establishment that never meaningfully changes? What if that establishment doesn't want and doesn't have the consent of the governed? What if the two-party system was actually a mechanism used to limit so-called public opinion? What if there were more than two sides to every issue, but the two parties wanted to box you in to one of their corners?
What if there's no such thing as public opinion, because every thinking person has opinions that are uniquely his own? What if public opinion was just a manufactured narrative that makes it easier to convince people that if their views are different, there's something wrong with that -- or something wrong with them?
What if the whole purpose of the Democratic and Republican parties was not to expand voters' choices, but to limit them? What if the widely perceived differences between the two parties was just an illusion? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter who's in the White House? What if the heart of government policy remains the same, no matter what the people want?
What if those vaunted differences between Democrat and Republican were actually just minor disagreements? What if both parties just want power and are willing to have young people fight meaningless wars in order to enhance that power? What if both parties continue to fight the war on drugs just to give bureaucrats and cops bigger budgets and more jobs?
What if government policies didn't change when government's leaders did? What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same? What if government was really a revolving door of political hacks, bent on exploiting the people while they're in charge?
What if both parties supported welfare, war, debt, bailouts and big government? What if the rhetoric that candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory? What if Barack Obama campaigned as an antiwar, pro-civil liberties candidate, then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect? What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of nonintervention and small government, then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?
What if Bill Clinton declared the era of big government to be over, but actually just convinced Republicans like Newt Gingrich that they can get what they want out of big government, too? What if the Republicans went along with it?
What if Ronald Reagan spent six years running for president promising to shrink government, but then the government grew while he was in office? What if, notwithstanding Reagan's ideas and cheerfulness and libertarian rhetoric, there really was no Reagan Revolution?
What if all this is happening again? What if Rick Santorum is being embraced by voters who want small government even though he voted for the Patriot Act, for an expansion of Medicare and for raising the debt ceiling by trillions of dollars? What if Mitt Romney is being embraced by voters who want anyone but Obama, but don't realize that Romney might as well be Obama on everything from warfare to welfare?
What if Ron Paul is being ignored by the media not because theyclaim he's unappealing or unelectable, but because he doesn't fit into the pre-manufactured public opinion mold used by the establishment to pigeonhole the electorate and create the so-called narrative that drives media coverage of elections?
What if the biggest difference between most candidates was not substance but style? What if those stylistic differences were packaged as substantive ones to re-enforce the illusion of a difference between Democrats and Republicans? What if Romney wins and ends up continuing most of the same policies that Obama promoted? What if Obama's policies, too, are merely extensions of Bush's?
What if a government that manipulated us could be fired? What if a government that lacked the true and knowing consent of the governed could be dismissed? What if it were possible to have a game-changer? What if we need a Ron Paul to preserve and protect our freedoms from assault by the government?
What if we could make elections matter again? What if we could do something about this?
From the Weekly Standard this morning.
Was Santorum a Senate Spendthrift?
Jeffrey H. Anderson and Andy Wickersham
February 15, 2012 11:00 AM
Mitt Romney is now arguing that Rick Santorum’s record exposes him as one of those Republicans who “act like Democrats” once they get to Washington. Romney surrogate Tim Pawlenty adds that Santorum “clearly has been part of the big-spending establishment in Congress.” Another Romney surrogate, former senator Jim Talent, says of Santorum, “He certainly has been outspoken on social issues . . . but when you get outside those issues into fiscal, spending, regulatory issues, his record shows that he’s been in the liberal wing of the Republican party.”
This is clearly emerging as one of Romney’s two prominent lines of attack against Santorum, the other — a related one — being that Santorum is a “Washington insider.” But since the only reason Romney didn’t become a “Washington insider” himself is that he failed to win election in either of his two bids for federal office, and since the vast majority of the Republican party’s Washington insiders are backing Romney, this claim is likely to persuade precious few GOP voters. That leaves Romney with only one real line of attack against Santorum: that the former Pennsylvania senator’s record isn’t that of a fiscal conservative.
So, is Romney’s claim true? Was Santorum a spendthrift in the Senate? Fortunately, credible third party analysis is available to help us answer this question, so we need not merely accept the Romney campaign’s verdict as the final word on the matter.
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.
But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.
In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
So, if Santorum was among — and perhaps even topped the list of — the most fiscally conservative senators during this period, who were the least fiscally conservative? That prize would have to go to the two North Dakota senators, who despite representing a state that voted 23 points to the right of the national average in the presidential elections, managed to achieve GPAs of 0.08 (Democrat Kent Conrad) and 0.00 (Democrat Byron Dorgan). Honorable mentions would have to go to Max Baucus (D., Mont.), who got a 0.84 GPA in a state that was 18 points to the right of the national average; Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who got a 0.08 GPA in a state that was 4 points to the right of average; and Utah Republicans Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch, who each barely cleared a 3.0 (3.11 for Bennett, 3.08 for Hatch) despite representing the state that, in the presidential elections, was the nation’s most right-leaning (38 points to the right of average).
As for Santorum’s potential opponent in the fall, Barack Obama’s three years in the Senate (2005 through 2007) overlapped only with Santorum’s final two years. (In 2008, Obama effectively left the Senate to campaign for President and therefore didn’t cast enough votes for NTU to score him that year.) In both of the years that the two men overlapped (2005 and 2006), as well as throughout Obama’s three years’ worth of preparation for the presidency, Obama’s GPA was 0.00 — a rock-solid F.
Now that’s acting like a Democrat — something Santorum has never done.
Sparty On
02-16-2012, 13:51
Not a fan. If he can't win his home state as an incumbent in 2006, how can he be expected to win other "purple" states in a general election facing Obama?
(Damn, Don...the "what if's" scared the crap out of me! Just as I was trying to decide who to invite to my picnic...flies or ants!)
I intend to vote for any life form that's NOT our current Mandater-and-Chief.
Not a fan. If he can't win his home state as an incumbent in 2006, how can he be expected to win other "purple" states in a general election facing Obama?
Why are you not a fan?
Many politicians have the same problem, yet go on to get elected in other races.
You could say the same thing about Romney. The reason he didn't run for reelection is because he knew he was going to get the snot kicked out of him. Are you a fan of Romney?
You do realize how blue Pennsylvania was in 2006? Dems had Republicans by 15% points. Not really a surprise that he lost, seeing as how that is the year the Dems swept Congress and brought us the likes of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
I have a feeling that if Santorum gets the nomination, the Obama camp and the media will absolutely destroy him and his record. They'll bring up the whole fiasco of him residing in Virginia during the final months of his tenure representing Pennsylvania in the Senate, even though he had denounced Doug Walgren for doing the same during the 1990 Congressional election. Then there is the staunch anti gay rights stance he has espoused for some time. He even once said preventing homosexuals from getting married was the ultimate homeland security issue (or something along those lines). While I can understand that he didn't mean to insinuate that LGBT people are a threat to national security, it nevertheless would be hard for him to shake off his image as an extremist and a homophobe.
Personally, I don't think by residing in a different state than his own, Santorum did anything that countless other politicians haven't. However, as we all know, the media has an immeasurable amount of influence on voters' opinions these days, so they will make it seem like a monumental issue. As for his ability versus Obama, I am not convinced he could defeat the President in debates, although that certainly would remain to be seen. He does have the ability to unite conservatives unlike Romney or Paul and doesn't carry the personal life baggage that Gingrich has. This will be interesting, especially since he was such a long shot at the commencement of the primary season.
Go Devil
02-16-2012, 23:31
Jensen's Speech linked below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sySuIXG_IM
Old Hickory was the last one to exhibit any mettle; the rest are prostitutes pimped by investors.
Copper plated tin x 2.
(Damn, Don...the "what if's" scared the crap out of me! Just as I was trying to decide who to invite to my picnic...flies or ants!)
I intend to vote for any life form that's NOT our current Mandater-and-Chief.
...and that's the point. Bring up Ron Paul's name and no one like the idea of him being the candidate because he is "unelectable". But of the remaining candidates, he is the one whos ideas most closely match the original intent of the Constitution. MANY folks consider him a whack job. I think it's because alot of folks actualy WANT or DEMAND more Government control...not for themselves mind you, but for the other folks that cant control themselves. The Government is very willing to exploit that mindset.
craigepo
02-17-2012, 08:48
I have a feeling that if Santorum gets the nomination, the Obama camp and the media will absolutely destroy him and his record.
It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.
One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.
A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.
So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.
It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.
One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.
A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.
So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.
I absolutely agree. It's interesting how Obama virtually got a free pass from the media and the majority of the American electorate on his record (despite the fact that he didn't have much of one in the Senate). Santorum, Romney, or whoever wins the nomination will be forced to answer to every little detail from their past, whereas Obama often refused to do so. I also concur with your assessment that Santorum as a whole is more likeable than Romney and better able to resonate with the conservative base. He comes across to me as being more "blue-collar" and down to Earth. Those will be invaluable characteristics when it comes time for the general election, which as we all know has become a beauty contest in recent years. :rolleyes:
The Reaper
02-17-2012, 17:38
It doesn't matter who gets the nomination, Obama's campaign will set their sights on anything they think will help them win.
One issue in any election is a candidate's record. If a candidate has done anything at all in the public realm, he/she is going to have a paper trail, whether it's votes on bills, decisions, you name it, it's fair game.
A strong point for any conservative candidate is that if Obama wants to run record vs. record, he essentially loses against anybody. The amount of money he has spent is egregious.
So, I would opine that we must pick a candidate who can get the conservative base out en masse to vote, and also pick up enough independents to win 50.1 percent of the vote.
I would settle for 270 electoral votes.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
02-17-2012, 17:47
Care to share views on Santorum, TR? :munchin
Ron Paul is my choice, the rest all look the same to me. I'm trying to stay positive, but I think that the republican party has failed us by pushing all of these lukewarm candidates onto the people.
Here's my political philosophy: decide what your principles are, then allow your principles to dictate your stance on the issues, social and economic.
I'm expecting some feedback on the Ron Paul thing....looking forward to it.
The Reaper
02-17-2012, 18:34
Care to share views on Santorum, TR? :munchin
Probably the best of the remaining conservatives, and more electable than the alternatives.
Romney - Obama Lite. Far too liberal, a flipflopper and a liar to boot. Little if any conservative support other than what he paid for. Has the most money and the best organization. Religion may be an issue for some. Could beat Obama, if conservatives supported strongly, but no real sign of that thus far.
Gingrich - Smart, well-spoken, and a deal maker, but totally unelectable due to personal issues and tendency to speak too candidly in public. Limited resources and not always well spent. Definite huge loser to Obama.
Paul - Probably what we need to shock the system. Unfortunately, has far out positions and opinions and is not afraid to share them and is thus unelectable. Second best organization. Probably a landslide loser to Obama.
Santorum - Smart, sharp, and usually on message. Motivates conservatives without being a firebrand like Newt or alienating Independents and moderates. Needs money and organization, but that should come as he wins states. Could beat Obama.
Just my .02, YMMV.
TR
Roguish Lawyer
02-17-2012, 18:41
Santorum is not going to get much moderate or independent support IMO. His views on social issues like birth control will drive lots and lots of voters away. I see him getting slaughtered in a general election. I think we are all screwed.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
I put him right up there with Backman and all the other religious zealots. Wearing his religion on his sleeve. Always thinking they know whats best for us. What a joke.
I'm expecting some feedback on the Ron Paul thing....looking forward to it.Not withstanding my, ah, skepticism of Representative Paul's political views and policy preferences, he does not demonstrate the skill set of an effective parliamentarian.
Of the last forty eight bills he's sponsored, only four had ten or more co-sponsors (10, 10, 33, and 210), while thirty-one had zero co-sponsors. None of these bills have made it out of committee.
The country needs a president who can get things done, not just talk about what should be done. Mr. Paul, much like the current president, has focused on the latter at the expense of demonstrating he can do the former.
craigepo
02-17-2012, 20:16
I would settle for 270 electoral votes.
TR
As a guy who runs local races, I had totally forgotten about electoral votes. Every other race in the U.S. just counts votes---he with the most wins. The electoral/popular vote is a very important distinction in this race. Come hell or high water, certain states such as California are going to go democratic. The opposite is true in conservative states, think Texas and the south. So, the guy who gets the nomination has to be able to win swing states, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. Specifically, independents in those states.
Sparty On
02-17-2012, 20:26
Why are you not a fan?
Many politicians have the same problem, yet go on to get elected in other races.
You could say the same thing about Romney. The reason he didn't run for reelection is because he knew he was going to get the snot kicked out of him. Are you a fan of Romney?
You do realize how blue Pennsylvania was in 2006? Dems had Republicans by 15% points. Not really a surprise that he lost, seeing as how that is the year the Dems swept Congress and brought us the likes of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.
afchic,
I am not a fan of Mr. Santorum because his principles and values do not reflect my own.
I do realize how blue PA was in '06, but I also realize that that has changed, hence my using the term "purple."
If Mr. Romney would stop flip-flopping, I would be more amenable to voting for him. Unfortunately, he has not, and in the process is alienating lots of independents.
Santorum is not going to get much moderate or independent support IMO. His views on social issues like birth control will drive lots and lots of voters away. I see him getting slaughtered in a general election. I think we are all screwed.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
Agree wholeheartedly.
ZonieDiver
02-17-2012, 22:07
Santorum is not going to get much moderate or independent support IMO. His views on social issues like birth control will drive lots and lots of voters away. I see him getting slaughtered in a general election. I think we are all screwed.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
I agree with this assessment. For me, it is this simple:
Nominate Santorum - (Re)Elect Obama.
Due to his radical religious views, he'd be lucky to get over 30% of the female vote, and could probably not even carry a state like Arizona. He is NOT conservative. He cannot see the inconsistency of favoring a federal law banning abortion, yet allowing the states to ban or allow contraception. (Contraception?!?! Where are we, 1940??? And they talked about JFK being "controlled" by the Pope!)
Ron Paul? Are you serious? He places earmarks in bills that are bound to pass, and then votes against them when they come to the floor. He thinks that by removing the US from world affairs, everyone will "love" us and respect us for that - totally ignoring the fact that there are those in this world that are dedicated to our destructilon JUST BECAUSE. His foreign policy would be the equivalent of putting his fingers in his ears and making the "la la" sound when shit happens. Elect him... and it will.
Newt. DOA!
Romney. Flawed. Not conservative enough. BUT, the only one of the current crew who had a chance of beating Obama. (That was before this "primary" bloodfest, which has almost assuredly resulted in Obama's re-election - unless someone "rides to the rescue" at the Republican National Convention.)
GratefulCitizen
02-17-2012, 22:55
Few will care about social issues unless the economy has miraculous growth in the next 6 months.
If the election is made about the current office holder, we'll have a new one.
Expect all media attention to be directed at the republican nominee.
Anything to distract from the incompetence displayed for the last 4 years.
Not withstanding my, ah, skepticism of Representative Paul's political views and policy preferences, he does not demonstrate the skill set of an effective parliamentarian.
Of the last forty eight bills he's sponsored, only four had ten or more co-sponsors (10, 10, 33, and 210), while thirty-one had zero co-sponsors. None of these bills have made it out of committee.
The country needs a president who can get things done, not just talk about what should be done. Mr. Paul, much like the current president, has focused on the latter at the expense of demonstrating he can do the former.
So by get things done you mean pressuring same party members to vote a certain way, and allowing the other party members to ear mark legislation so that they will vote for it, increasing wasteful spending, blah blah blah.....because that is how the rest of them "get things done". In the end both parties appeal to their support base on emphasized issues of the time, and can criticize the opposition...but hey, at least the bill was passed...
Rep. Paul doesn't sing the party lines like a mindless fool like the rest, he also doesn't play their game, he sticks to his principles, unlike the rest. I don't want a guy that will sacrifice his principles to "get things done". That is the exact opposite of what our country needs right now.
Great 5 minute video here:
http://youtu.be/AZ9WOqJG-2s
love this youtube website, great information.
Santorum is not going to get much moderate or independent support IMO. His views on social issues like birth control will drive lots and lots of voters away. I see him getting slaughtered in a general election. I think we are all screwed.
Have a nice weekend everyone!
Agreed. Typical Republican banter: little government intervention economically, big government intervention socially. Very unattractive to a lot of people. The election will depend on what independents and moderates believe is more important, economic freedom or social freedom.
Here's an interesting article on Reuters this morning. If Romney performs poorly in Michigan (as recent polls suggest he might), chaos could ensue. It would be interesting to see if someone else throws their hat into the race, either before Super Tuesday or at the Republican National Convention in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-usa-campaign-convention-idUSTRE81H04520120218
Sparty On
02-18-2012, 14:39
Here's an interesting article on Reuters this morning. If Romney performs poorly in Michigan (as recent polls suggest he might), chaos could ensue. It would be interesting to see if someone else throws their hat into the race, either before Super Tuesday or at the Republican National Convention in August.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-usa-campaign-convention-idUSTRE81H04520120218
It is very possible for Romney to lose in MI -- we have an open primary. In other words, you can vote on the Republican ballot in the primary even if you're not Republican (and vice-versa in Democratic primaries).
What if Democrats and Republicans were two wings of the same bird of prey?FWIW, I agree that the distance between the two parties is not as great as many would like to believe. However, I do not see this dynamic as the result of a 'power elite' seeking to distract and disenfranchise the rank and file through marketing and rhetoric.
Instead, I think voters are largely responsible for the state of political life in America today. Through our voting patterns, our (anti-) intellectual habits and our rhetoric, we send a clear message to elected officials that we prefer gridlock in Washington and that we want echo chambers when it comes to debate over policy options. Moreover, by contributing to the game of "gotcha," we help to drive out of politics those who don't want every aspect of their private lives placed under unrelenting scrutiny.
My $0.02.
It is very possible for Romney to lose in MI -- we have an open primary. In other words, you can vote on the Republican ballot in the primary even if you're not Republican (and vice-versa in Democratic primaries).
I've never really agreed with the idea of open primaries as voting from a pool candidates who all are of the same party should naturally be reserved for voters affiliated with that party. Despite his recent poor showings, I am still of the belief that Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama, and a win in Michigan is absolutely vital for him. If somebody else decides to jump in, Governor Mitch Daniels would probably be the best choice, at least judging from his record in the Hoosier State.
When Democrats are in power, man represses man. When Republicans are in power, it's the other way around.
Vote Libertarian to get the Democrats out of your wallet and the Republicans out of your bedroom. How much freedom can you tolerate?
GratefulCitizen
02-18-2012, 21:53
How much freedom can you tolerate?
It's amazing how many people, through their actions, demonstrate that they don't really want freedom.
They consistently make private choices (not counting voting) which limit their own freedom.
I don't think they want freedom because freedom means responsibility for results.
It's psychologically easier for them to blame another for results than take responsibility for themselves.
tom kelly
02-18-2012, 22:26
All of the candidates running for elected office are LIERS. They will tell you want to hear & then they will vote or do what is best for them. You want change? I doubt we will ever get it...TK
I don't think they want freedom because freedom means responsibility for results.
And that is the part that is dragging down parts of this country.
Not withstanding my, ah, skepticism of Representative Paul's political views and policy preferences, he does not demonstrate the skill set of an effective parliamentarian.
Of the last forty eight bills he's sponsored, only four had ten or more co-sponsors (10, 10, 33, and 210), while thirty-one had zero co-sponsors. None of these bills have made it out of committee.
The country needs a president who can get things done, not just talk about what should be done. Mr. Paul, much like the current president, has focused on the latter at the expense of demonstrating he can do the former.
The current POTUS isn't just talking, he is getting things done, he may not have accomplished as much as he would like to have, but is getting things done and if he gets a second term he will get more done.
Bush the Younger got things done and so did Clinton. So in my mind getting things done isn't the problem, the problem is what they are getting done and who is benefiting.
I have my reservations about Mr. Paul, but wonder if his lack of co-sponsors has more to do with not towing the party line than it does his abilities.
All of the candidates running for elected office are LIERS. They will tell you want to hear & then they will vote or do what is best for them. You want change? I doubt we will ever get it...TK
True. And a lot of people believe whatever they are told. There is another group that votes for their team whether by party, race, etc.
Though I find more and more people stating they are voting for the lesser of 2 evils.
And little will change until we change our voting habits.
I could certainly be wrong, but after hearing of Rick Santorum's Satan comments that he made back in '08 and some other recent iffy remarks, I am really beginning to question his electability. Judging by the polls, that would basically leave Romney as the sole remaining candidate with any chance to beat Obama (and that may be a stretch based on his failure to incite enthusiasm even within his own party). A brokered convention may be a drastic measure (Karl Rove calls it "as remote as life on Pluto"), but with how things are going at this point, it could end up being the GOP's only hope of denying the President a second term in office.
However, the problem with that course of action is that both Gov. Mitch Daniels and Gov. Chris Christie, the two consistently mentioned alternatives, have remained adamant in their refusal to enter the race. The only other two options that immediately come to mind are Jeb Bush and Sarah Palin. Bush seems like a long shot at this point (and besides, I question how keen the American electorate would be on voting for another Bush), and Palin has enough baggage of her own. What does everyone else think?
GratefulCitizen
02-21-2012, 17:41
And little will change until we change our voting habits.
While that part of the problem can't be ignored, it is a holding action, not a solution.
IMO, the solution is in influencing those few who are near us more deeply, rather than influencing many who are far from us superficially.
In time, those you influence will influence others.
Eventually, the effects of meaningful influence will win over the superficial.
The benefit for this type of influence will not be felt in our time, but will be felt by our posterity.
While that part of the problem can't be ignored, it is a holding action, not a solution.
IMO, the solution is in influencing those few who are near us more deeply, rather than influencing many who are far from us superficially.
In time, those you influence will influence others.
Eventually, the effects of meaningful influence will win over the superficial.
The benefit for this type of influence will not be felt in our time, but will be felt by our posterity.
At present that is a long, long road. We might reach a point in a generation or two where 3 ring circuses and our quad yearly procession of Professor Harold Hills is usurped by common sense....and that's not taking into consideration that the power brokers are going to fight it tooth and nail every step of the way, or the possibility that it all turns to dust.
[T]he solution is in influencing those few who are near us more deeply, rather than influencing many who are far from us superficially.This approach to politics sure worked out pretty well for America in the mid-nineteenth century.
Not for nothing did James Madison warn of the perils of interests that centered around one or two key characteristics. Source is here (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm).Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
Roguish Lawyer
02-21-2012, 20:46
Sigaba? Quoting Fed #10? Very nice! :)
A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project.
Amazing!!! Madison could be speaking in the present day.
I could certainly be wrong, but after hearing of Rick Santorum's Satan comments that he made back in '08 and some other recent iffy remarks, I am really beginning to question his electability. Judging by the polls, that would basically leave Romney as the sole remaining candidate with any chance to beat Obama (and that may be a stretch based on his failure to incite enthusiasm even within his own party). A brokered convention may be a drastic measure (Karl Rove calls it "as remote as life on Pluto"), but with how things are going at this point, it could end up being the GOP's only hope of denying the President a second term in office.
...and so we are left the choice as a Nation, Religion or Socialism...and given the two choices, Socialism is going to win? The media pounds away at the religion of every president (or presidential candidate) as if it was a bad thing. It is a non-issue. If people don’t get their heads out of their collective asses and realize that RELIGION is not the terminal illness affecting this country, then we truly are on the downhill slide.
When was the last time a President tried to have a law passed mandating people have a religion? Name the last “Faith Based Initiative” passed by a President. I can’t think of one off the top of my head, and I am not even going to take the time to Google it right now since I am on this rant. But as an exercise, if you have a minute, see if you can find one and compare that with the Patriot Act and/or Healthcare Reform. The media continues to promote these little petty battles over non-issues, and it is lapped up.
...and so we are left the choice as a Nation, Religion or Socialism...and given the two choices, Socialism is going to win? The media pounds away at the religion of every president (or presidential candidate) as if it was a bad thing. It is a non-issue. If people don’t get their heads out of their collective asses and realize that RELIGION is not the terminal illness affecting this country, then we truly are on the downhill slide.
When was the last time a President tried to have a law passed mandating people have a religion? Name the last “Faith Based Initiative” passed by a President. I can’t think of one off the top of my head, and I am not even going to take the time to Google it right now since I am on this rant. But as an exercise, if you have a minute, see if you can find one and compare that with the Patriot Act and/or Healthcare Reform. The media continues to promote these little petty battles over non-issues, and it is lapped up.
That's a good point, and one I ponder as to why it is such an issue. I would go as far as saying that considering that one of the pinnacles of America is Freedom of Religion it is un-American to make it an issue.
Right at this moment we have an administration that is actively attempting strip the right of a religion from practicing it's beliefs. I not a Catholic and I don't like where that is headed. If the Cult of Obama succeeds in forcing this edict on abortion and contraception down the throats of Catholics who and what will be next.
That Healthcare mandate and the Administration behavior on the matter makes Santorums's Fire & Brimstone or Mitt's Mormonism quite trivial.
"First They Came for the Jews"
By Pastor Niemoller
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
...and so we are left the choice as a Nation, Religion or Socialism...and given the two choices, Socialism is going to win? The media pounds away at the religion of every president (or presidential candidate) as if it was a bad thing. It is a non-issue. If people don’t get their heads out of their collective asses and realize that RELIGION is not the terminal illness affecting this country, then we truly are on the downhill slide.
When was the last time a President tried to have a law passed mandating people have a religion? Name the last “Faith Based Initiative” passed by a President. I can’t think of one off the top of my head, and I am not even going to take the time to Google it right now since I am on this rant. But as an exercise, if you have a minute, see if you can find one and compare that with the Patriot Act and/or Healthcare Reform. The media continues to promote these little petty battles over non-issues, and it is lapped up.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, sir. As a Christian myself, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with the religious beliefs of Santorum, Romney, Obama, or any other politician for that matter. Some people, on the other hand, obviously do and insist (wrongly, in my opinion) that someone's religion can negatively impact their policy making. In the case of the Catholic Santorum, it would probably come from his acceptance of Church teaching regarding contraception, which many of the electorate would likely take exception towards. I suspect the Democrats and the media will both try to use that against him if he wins the nomination.
A person's religious views are ultimately their business, but that should not ever exclude them from the public sphere.
....................................is a religion.
Heritics are delt with harshly.
I agree with you wholeheartedly, sir. As a Christian myself, I have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with the religious beliefs of Santorum, Romney, Obama, or any other politician for that matter. Some people, on the other hand, obviously do and insist (wrongly, in my opinion) that someone's religion can negatively impact their policy making. In the case of the Catholic Santorum, it would probably come from his acceptance of Church teaching regarding contraception, which many of the electorate would likely take exception towards. I suspect the Democrats and the media will both try to use that against him if he wins the nomination.
A person's religious views are ultimately their business, but that should not ever exclude them from the public sphere.
...and those people are the ones that control the message, which means you get to make your mind up based on whatever stories the media chooses to transmit. I would like to hear more about repealing obamacare, income tax reform, getting the economy moving, and entitlement reduction.
GratefulCitizen
02-22-2012, 20:43
This approach to politics sure worked out pretty well for America in the mid-nineteenth century.
Not for nothing did James Madison warn of the perils of interests that centered around one or two key characteristics. Source is here (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm).
Excellent argument.
It's contrasted against a point I wasn't trying to make.
My argument was the math.
Diffuse, superficial influence doesn't stick and is only useful for short-term election cycles.
Concentrated influence grows roots.
Exponential growth wins.
I suspect this is exactly why liberals are so concerned with controlling the education system.
I also suspect this is why they like government dependence to become a habit passed between generations.
ZonieDiver
02-22-2012, 21:13
Back to Santorum:
Ron Paul took his lunch money tonight.
It's contrasted against a point I wasn't trying to make.
The point you made in your previous post is consistent with an approach to American politics you've been articulating on this BB for at least the last two years. This approach calls for the concentration of power within individual states and leaves dissenters with the option to "vote with their feet."
How is your proposed solution to the current crisis in American politics any different than what many proposed during the mid-nineteenth century? Is your proposed approach sustainable today even though the founding fathers warned us against it, they devised a system of government to protect us from it, and yet it still almost managed to destroy the country in the 1860s? Is your view of what you call "liberalism" so imposing to you that the only way America can be protected from it is to chart a ruinous path?
And also. Why, when it is brought to your attention that your proposals have already been the subject of debate and experimentation in our past, do you turn the conversation to basic math? Are you suggesting that arithmetic trumps historical experience? Is it your contention that previous attempts to apply similar approaches to American politics failed because the practitioners did the math wrong? Or are you using an elegant short-hand to make a more profound philosophical point about the illogical nature of humankind? :confused:
I suspect this is exactly why liberals are so concerned with controlling the education system. I also suspect this is why they like government dependence to become a habit passed between generations.Why not do your intellectual due diligence and develop answers to your own questions?
PedOncoDoc
02-23-2012, 05:20
Are you suggesting that arithmetic trumps historical experience?
I would argue yes - no many how many times prominent or large numbers of people have said otherwise (and had it recorded for the ages), 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and I can readily prove it.
I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".
Too a far leftist, it's perfectly okay to kill a third-trimester baby, but waterboard a mass-murdering terrorist and you are Hitler.
Godwins Law!
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Mike_Godwin_at_Wikimedia_2010.jpg/220px-Mike_Godwin_at_Wikimedia_2010.jpg&imgrefurl=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law&usg=__sop8WeudxEZUmMTalrVBqZkTv4w=&h=147&w=220&sz=9&hl=en&start=26&zoom=1&tbnid=ClbNygtUDDTB_M:&tbnh=71&tbnw=107&ei=ljtGT-LpC-PY0QGY8PCDDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bgodwin%2Brule%26start%3D21%26hl %3Den%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1
I would argue yes -
I would argue it plays a part but that it depends - based upon the subject and the intellectual level(s) of the participants.
For example, 2 people + 2 people may initially equal merely 4 people at the most supeficial level of understanding, but in the realm of personal beliefs and higher levels of reasoning (e.g., the interpolation of History and its relevance), the permutations of ideas explored and conclusions which can be expressed that may then alter the beliefs or actions of others go far beyond a simple 2nd grade-level mathematical equation.
In politics, where literally millions of people and their myriad beliefs, opinions, and actions all interact, such simple math certainly does not apply in a representative system in which a President can be elected without receiving a simple majority of the popular vote of the electorate, or, if that fails, by either a select judicial or legislative body. Therefore, 2 votes + 2 votes may equal 4 votes, but the reasoning behind those votes and the affect of those 4 votes may vary dramatically depending upon where they are being cast and for whom.
Then there is the practicing of the art and science of warfare, where math applies as a consideration but is seldom the sole determinant as to the outcome of skirmishes, battles, expeditions, campaigns, and wars.
And even in science and engineering, 2+2 of something does not necessarily always = 4 (except at the most rudimentary level of understanding) - 4 'similar' objects or life forms, perhaps, but seldom (if at all) exactly equal, either in their existance or in their influence.
So, IMO, unless you're teaching simple addition to a six-year-old...I would argue that it depends.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Tweeder11
02-23-2012, 10:35
.... Rick Santorum will be able to run again, because imho he will not win the GOP. I personally would like to see him with a little more seasoning, hopefully maintaing the same passion, but a bit more (for lack of a better word) settled.
As a Catholic myself, I respect his faith and I think he's a fine role model, however the defining charactersict trait I witnessed last night in the debate was when you rattle his cage he's easily knocked off his rocker (at the very least in appearace and impression). This reminded me of the Catholic Sisters and Brothers that taught me growing up, some of the best people you can know, but absolutely stubborn in their belief (I'm not saying this is a fault, just a turn-off to voters). If in (lets HOPE) 8 years of some possitive turnaround he is able to maintain a better disposition when attacked and respond a little cooler under pressure then he could become an outstanding leader of this country.
My humble $.02,
Tweeder
After last night's debate, which it the first one I have watched all the way through, my initial thoughts were strengthened.
Although I am a Rick Santorum kind of a girl, I would vote for any of the members of the panel last night (with the exception of Ron Paul. His thoughts on foreign policy leave alot to be desired, IMHO) againt Obama. Any of the 3 would make a much better POTUS than the one we are currently chained to right now.
PedOncoDoc
02-23-2012, 12:50
I would argue it plays a part but that it depends - based upon the subject and the intellectual level(s) of the participants.
For example, 2 people + 2 people may initially equal merely 4 people at the most supeficial level of understanding, but in the realm of personal beliefs and higher levels of reasoning (e.g., the interpolation of History and its relevance), the permutations of ideas explored and conclusions which can be expressed that may then alter the beliefs or actions of others go far beyond a simple 2nd grade-level mathematical equation.
In politics, where literally millions of people and their myriad beliefs, opinions, and actions all interact, such simple math certainly does not apply in a representative system in which a President can be elected without receiving a simple majority of the popular vote of the electorate, or, if that fails, by either a select judicial or legislative body. Therefore, 2 votes + 2 votes may equal 4 votes, but the reasoning behind those votes and the affect of those 4 votes may vary dramatically depending upon where they are being cast and for whom.
Then there is the practicing of the art and science of warfare, where math applies as a consideration but is seldom the sole determinant as to the outcome of skirmishes, battles, expeditions, campaigns, and wars.
And even in science and engineering, 2+2 of something does not necessarily always = 4 (except at the most rudimentary level of understanding) - 4 'similar' objects or life forms, perhaps, but seldom (if at all) exactly equal, either in their existance or in their influence.
So, IMO, unless you're teaching simple addition to a six-year-old...I would argue that it depends.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
You're talking math - Sigaba specifically stated "arithmetic". Given his proclivity for arguing word usage, this is an important distinction.
I agree wholheartedly with your post, but your argument applying all of math to the narrow field of arithmetic is akin to complaining about inadequate application of the finer points of grammar and composition on someone's spelling test.
Now...back on subject. I can't believe the GOP can't do better than the current clown show, and I'm secretly hoping this is all a distraction before the real candidate is announced at the GOP convention.
...but your argument applying all of math to the narrow field of arithmetic...
I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention when I read this statement:
I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".
I'll try to do better.
As for the current political Circus of Dr Lao affair we're experiencing, I'll be surprised if we don't encourage Yottle to make an appearance sometime soon - which might actually make it all more interesting.
And so it goes...
Richard
GratefulCitizen
02-23-2012, 13:36
The point you made in your previous post is consistent with an approach to American politics you've been articulating on this BB for at least the last two years. This approach calls for the concentration of power within individual states and leaves dissenters with the option to "vote with their feet."
How is your proposed solution to the current crisis in American politics any different than what many proposed during the mid-nineteenth century? Is your proposed approach sustainable today even though the founding fathers warned us against it, they devised a system of government to protect us from it, and yet it still almost managed to destroy the country in the 1860s? Is your view of what you call "liberalism" so imposing to you that the only way America can be protected from it is to chart a ruinous path?
And also. Why, when it is brought to your attention that your proposals have already been the subject of debate and experimentation in our past, do you turn the conversation to basic math? Are you suggesting that arithmetic trumps historical experience? Is it your contention that previous attempts to apply similar approaches to American politics failed because the practitioners did the math wrong? Or are you using an elegant short-hand to make a more profound philosophical point about the illogical nature of humankind? :confused:
We're talking past each other.
"Voting patterns" evoked thoughts of statistical survey sampling and how politicians use these tools to taylor their message and manipulate the masses.
It alse evoked thoughts of growth rates of different constituencies, the Roe Effect, the Fertility Gap, muslims overrunning Europe, and many others.
The miscommunication in no way diminished your post.
Nobody expects you to be a mind-reader.
During the the last 4 1/2 years on this board I've approached far more topics through the lens of a math mind than I've posted on narrow subject of federalism.
We all have our lenses and miscommunications are bound to happen given the limitations of this media.
Why not do your intellectual due diligence and develop answers to your own questions?
Or, better yet, why not implement my beliefs into my life and actively influence those with whom I am sharing life's journey.
(Already do this...)
Some sing, some dance.
GratefulCitizen
02-23-2012, 13:44
I would argue yes - no many how many times prominent or large numbers of people have said otherwise (and had it recorded for the ages), 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and I can readily prove it.
I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".
Now now, Dr.
There is no reason to taunt History majors about their atrophied left inferior parietal and frontal lobes.
:D;)
I would argue yes - no many how many times prominent or large numbers of people have said otherwise (and had it recorded for the ages), 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and I can readily prove it.
I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".
2+2 equals 4 on paper...always has and always will. Math may well be the "perfect science" unfortunately people are not scientific. The thing I love most about science is it proves a rule. I before E except after C or when sounding like A as in neighbor and weigh.
I read this entire thread. Some very good analysis; some very astute opinions. Trying to make people into a mathematical equations is not cost effective from any viewpoint.
My dad always said folks vote with their wallets rather than their feet. Take it for what it's worth.
Now now, Dr.
There is no reason to taunt History majors about their atrophied left inferior parietal and frontal lobes.
:D;)
You can't know where you are going if you don't know where you've been.
Man must know the point from which he started in order to find the goal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385430-503544/santorum-church-state-separation-not-absolute/
Just where do you think this leads; does the word theocracy come to mind? This guy insults my intelligence, we are a nation founded on religious freedom as opposed to the religious dictates of a chosen few, or a country like Iran, which, if this religious zealot held a mirror to, would realize. His hypocrisy is laughable.
MTN Medic
02-26-2012, 19:19
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57385430-503544/santorum-church-state-separation-not-absolute/
Just where do you think this leads; does the word theocracy come to mind? This guy insults my intelligence, we are a nation founded on religious freedom as opposed to the religious dictates of a chosen few, or a country like Iran, which, if this religious zealot held a mirror to, would realize. His hypocrisy is laughable.
And he is a bigot.
ZonieDiver
02-26-2012, 19:56
And he is a bigot.
And he doesn't know when to STFU!
Sweater vests!?! Are you F'ing kidding me?
GratefulCitizen
02-27-2012, 10:12
Santorum is playing with fire.
Of course, by that analogy, the president is a pyromaniac.
My main objection is that he's a former senator.
Don't like congress-critters running for president.
Prefer former governors and generals.
Just wish there were a better selection.
And he doesn't know when to STFU!
Sweater vests!?! Are you F'ing kidding me?
Agreed. This guy is a moron.
Im so sick of this shit, it can't be compromise...........it has to be all one way or the fucking other. We are in serious trouble until we can put some of these differences aside and meet in the middle with the man who is going to do whats in the best interest of the country.
Maybe we should ditch the two party system.
But hey, thats my .02.........
Jesse Ventura might be bat shit crazy, but he makes a good point.
Agreed. This guy is a moron.
Im so sick of this shit, it can't be compromise...........it has to be all one way or the fucking other. We are in serious trouble until we can put some of these differences aside and meet in the middle with the man who is going to do whats in the best interest of the country.
Maybe we should ditch the two party system.
But hey, thats my .02.........
Jesse Ventura might be bat shit crazy, but he makes a good point.
But what can be considered the middle?
Since the chosen one has taken office, we have moved so far to the left, that the middle we once knew is not the middle anymore. If we bring in a moderate to replace him, we still find ourselves to the left of center.
IMHO the only way to bring us back to the "middle" is to bring in a true conservative that will move us back towards the right of the spectrum. We have a whole hell of a lot of ground to reclaim in order to just go back to the status quo. Even if you brought in the most conservative person you can think of, it is going to take a lot of time and effort to just break even, let alone bring this country's policies and laws to right of center.
Jst my .02 worth.
In todays GOP neither Reagan nor Goldwater could find a place. The former would be too liberal and the latter too Godless. The Republicans are letting the "crazier than bat shit" crowd run the discussion. I am with Mickey Edwards, when did religion become a discussion of ones conservativeness? A lawyer friend of mine went to a meeting of the Federalist Society. All that was discussed was a religious agenda and how to inject it into government.. Rick Santorum and his crowd don't stand for religious freedom--they stand for dictating their beliefs to the rest of the country. I personally will take a slightly left of center president over a fucking lunatic any day.
In todays GOP neither Reagan nor Goldwater could find a place. The former would be too liberal and the latter too Godless. The Republicans are letting the "crazier than bat shit" crowd run the discussion. I am with Mickey Edwards, when did religion become a discussion of ones conservativeness? A lawyer friend of mine went to a meeting of the Federalist Society. All that was discussed was a religious agenda and how to inject it into government.. Rick Santorum and his crowd don't stand for religious freedom--they stand for dictating their beliefs to the rest of the country. I personally will take a slightly left of center president over a fucking lunatic any day.
I agree. Seems like the "true conservatives" of today are more hell bent on telling everyone else how their beliefs are right, and your wrong.
I am sick of the fucking pro-choice, pro-life bullshit. This is one of the main talking points of all candidates in the past 12 years. Im sick of it, I don't care what you do with your body.........Who am I to judge. It's up to you to make good with the man when the time comes.
Don't even get me started on the radical southern baptists that feel that we should burn every Koran and convert them all to Christianity..........How do you think they would react if the Muslims were over here trying to establish a 51st state and they burned a bible?
I will tell you....The exact same thing that is happening now in Afghanistan.
Sparty On
02-27-2012, 21:27
I've never really agreed with the idea of open primaries as voting from a pool candidates who all are of the same party should naturally be reserved for voters affiliated with that party.
I like being able to vote for candidates whose stances I agree with regardless of their party affiliation.
Voting tomorrow will be a very difficult choice for me -- I probably won't make up my mind until I'm in the booth.
Kyobanim
02-27-2012, 21:53
I agree. Seems like the "true conservatives" of today are more hell bent on telling everyone else how their beliefs are right, and your wrong.
I am sick of the fucking pro-choice, pro-life bullshit. This is one of the main talking points of all candidates in the past 12 years. Im sick of it, I don't care what you do with your body.........Who am I to judge. It's up to you to make good with the man when the time comes.
Don't even get me started on the radical southern baptists that feel that we should burn every Koran and convert them all to Christianity..........How do you think they would react if the Muslims were over here trying to establish a 51st state and they burned a bible?
I will tell you....The exact same thing that is happening now in Afghanistan.
I agree with you 100%. If you can't talk to the other side and make compromises you end up with the same pile of shit we have in congress and the WH now. Nothing gets done.
I agree with you 100%. If you can't talk to the other side and make compromises you end up with the same pile of shit we have in congress and the WH now. Nothing gets done.Agreed.
MOO, incumbents across the political spectrum need to do a better job at managing the expectations of their constituents. The fourth estate needs to stop treating political reporting like celebrity gossip. Voters would benefit from breaking bread with their neighbors who have different views.
I would argue yes - no many how many times prominent or large numbers of people have said otherwise (and had it recorded for the ages), 2 plus 2 will always equal 4 and I can readily prove it.
I have yet to see anything that trumps arithmetic when it comes down to facts. I had a high school teacher that referred to math as "the only perfect science".Doc--
You are right, I did use "arithmetic," not "mathematics," intentionally.
IME, spending a couple of days studying a decently sized parking system can test the notion that "two plus two will always equal four."
craigepo
02-28-2012, 00:06
Friends,
1. The "wall of separation between church and state" is not to be found within the Constitution or any of the Amendments thereto. This term was coined by President Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to a group called the Danbury Baptists.
2. The 1st Amendment says what it says. It says that Congress can't establish a religion, and that Congress can't prohibit a person's free exercise of religion. The 1st Amendment was ratified by the States. Jefferson's statement is not part of anything that has been ratified by Congress.
3. Never, ever, ever has this been a country in which the "separation of church and state" has been absolute. For example, research how long there has been opening prayers at Congress. Read some of the inscriptions on some of the magnificent edifices in Washington D.C. How could we have military chaplains if such an absolute wall existed?
4. I am very leery of forming an opinion based upon one or two sentences snipped from a speech. There is an old saying, "A text without a context is a pretext". While I am sure that Senator Santorum has many faults, I doubt that either bigotry or a desire to establish a theocracy are one of them.
5. I agree, in theory, that compromise is necessary in government. I believe it was Reagan who said that he was happy to get 80%, and further that just because someone disagrees with me does not make him my enemy. However, we now have an administration that has run up the most gigantic deficit in the history of this nation. Further, it is a mathematical certainty that entitlement spending will bankrupt Social Security and Medicare unless drastic measures are taken. We have over one Trillion barrels of oil available to be drilled in the U.S., and this President has refused to open drilling and further refused to allow the Keystone Pipeline. What compromises do you wish to make?
6. Clearly, the ability to say "no" is a gift that should be held by any politician. However, how exactly should incumbents "manage the expectations of their constituents"? Does this not run contrary to the idea of a representative republican democracy?
The problem here is that it is not necessarilly the woman's body, as there is another human being inside of it, or at least after a certain point. And if the State sanctions the killing of human life, that can lead to a dangerous slippery-slope. They allow what is essentially infanticide in the Netherlands, albeit under the guise of killing babies deemed to have health issues, and there was recently a journal article talking about how "abortions" of new-born babies should be permitted for any reason (LINK (http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/02/22/medethics-2011-100411.full?sid=3722e1a3-a440-4c6d-8a75-f8af41eebe19#ref-3)). A baby can be born as early as 24 weeks, although that is asking for trouble. Over 90% of babies born prematurely in the third trimester and up (starting at 28 weeks) survive. Which means that it clearly is a baby a good deal before being born. There are varying views on this issue: some say it's a baby at the moment of conception, but are okay with birth control, some are completely against birth control as well, others are okay with abortions during the first trimester and part of the second trimester, but want them banned during the third trimester except if the woman's life is in danger or the baby has a condition where it won't live more than a few days after being born, and some want no limits whatsoever on abortions during any trimester.
We can see the slippery-slope to eugenics among the far-left mindset. If you can argue for third-trimester abortions with no limits, then you can stretch it to allowing the killing of new-born babies as well for reasons of a health defect (as is permitted in countries like the Netherlands). If you can justify the killing of new-born babies for health defects, then you can stretch it to justify the killin of new-born babies for any reason (as the article claims). If you can justify infanticide, then you can stretch it to justify forced sterilization of people deemed "unfit" to reproduce (this happened during the 20th century in the U.S.). Taken to its extreme, you get what the Nazis did (round people up deemed "unfit" and systematically exterminate them).
How the State views human life is akin to how it views freedom of speech. Is free speech something cherished as sacred to a free society, something that the government can only infringe upon in very limited circumstances? Or is it just a priviledge that can be infringed upon anytime the government wants if you start saying things they don't like (as it is in certain other so-called free countries). In America, it is considered sacred. So how is human life viewed? Is human life viewed as something sacred and cherished, that the State can only end in limited circumstances, or is it something that the State can decide as it pleases?
Im not stating that I feel that third trimester abortions are ok in my book. I think thats a little bit extreme, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances. Which there can always be.
That being said, my point was directed towards the middle ground that we all need to come to in order to suit the best interest of the country.
Compromise will be the only thing that allows this country to survive. People will only tolerate the powers at be telling them that they are right and you are wrong for so long.
craigepo
03-02-2012, 10:19
Tuesday I had the opportunity to listen to Santorum's "robo-call" made to Michigan democrats. In that call, he asked democrats to take a republican ballot and vote for him (which is a good idea). The bad part was that his complaint against Romney in the phone call was Romney's disagreements with the auto company bailouts.
Santorum probably lost my vote because of this.
Badger52
03-02-2012, 10:50
I'm really just waitin' for the contender to emerge. Last night trying to find WTH the cable company did this week with my weather channel actually stumbled upon O'Reilly putting a very civil but straightforward question to Santorum last night, RE his opinion overall of the current zero in the WH.
He had a golden opportunity and still exhibited the willingness to dance, and the reluctance to engage something head-on that everyone knows, but won't articulate out loud for the record. Even before he spoke one could see the effort to parse his words, as if he was imagining the MSNBC headline the next morning.
I've met Ruffed Grouse with more courage; these guys are beginning to wear thin...
I'm really just waitin' for the contender to emerge. Last night trying to find WTH the cable company did this week with my weather channel actually stumbled upon O'Reilly putting a very civil but straightforward question to Santorum last night, RE his opinion overall of the current zero in the WH.
He had a golden opportunity and still exhibited the willingness to dance, and the reluctance to engage something head-on that everyone knows, but won't articulate out loud for the record. Even before he spoke one could see the effort to parse his words, as if he was imagining the MSNBC headline the next morning.
I've met Ruffed Grouse with more courage; these guys are beginning to wear thin...
I'll take a Ruffed Grouse over the status quo.
Well, right now the delegate count is Mitt at 458 - Newt/Rick/Ron at 387
Too bad Newt/Rick/Ron ain't one person.
Sparty On
03-12-2012, 13:18
I ended up voting for Ron Paul.
In my mind Mitt Romney keeps channeling John Kerry with his flip-flopping and Santorum's robocall totally turned me off.
Well, right now the delegate count is Mitt at 458 - Newt/Rick/Ron at 387
Too bad Newt/Rick/Ron ain't one person.
Some Paulistas are counting on Ron Paul to court unbound delegates to stay within striking distance of Romney. Say for example, Newt drops out of the race, his delegates become unbound and are now free to cast their vote for Ron Paul at the convention.
It's an interesting campaign strategy, to say the least.
I ended up voting for Ron Paul.
In my mind Mitt Romney keeps channeling John Kerry with his flip-flopping and Santorum's robocall totally turned me off.
Some Paulistas are counting on Ron Paul to court unbound delegates to stay within striking distance of Romney. Say for example, Newt drops out of the race, his delegates become unbound and are now free to cast their vote for Ron Paul at the convention.
It's an interesting campaign strategy, to say the least.
What will you do if Paul goes 3rd party?
Sparty On
03-14-2012, 13:16
What will you do if Paul goes 3rd party?
Good question -- I would vote for him again.
He didn't in 2008, so I would be very surprised if he did this year. :munchin
The problem here is that it is not necessarily the woman's body, as there is another human being inside of it, or at least after a certain point. And if the State sanctions the killing of human life, that can lead to a dangerous slippery-slope.
I am not exactly sure what certain states call the death penalty. However, I am sure it equals "State Sanctioned Taking (killing) of Human Life." and I am wondering what "slippery-slope" that has lead to regarding reproductive rights.
Danny Boy calling BroadSword! Come in BroadSword. Could we have a clarification, Please.