Well-Actually War Trall BainIhrno Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 So I've been tracking the 2012 Election, which I've been following the Republican primaries for. The next one is in South Carolina, with Romney expected to win. Any thoughts on the current crop of Republican candidates? How do you think it will go? Who do you think will win this year? Additionally, it looks like Gov. Walker of Wisconsin is headed for a recall election, which could go either way. If you want to make election predictions, here's 270 to Win.com. The 2012 Senate races are included as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I don't think Romney has the charisma to beat Obama. In fact, I'm not sure any of the candidates have a very good shot at the moderates, except perhaps Ron Paul. I could certainly be wrong, as I have few sources of political information and don't trust any of them, but it seems like the right wing is flubbing a solid chance to take back power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 It's the lesser of a lot of evils. There isn't a single candidate out there that I really want to vote for in this election and that goes down to the local elections in my area. It's going to come down to who screws up the least before November. Obama's hoping that the economy recovers enough that people will keep him for another term and the Republicans are sabotaging any plan that would help Obama. I mean the Republicans hold off voting for anything, even if they want it, if it my help Obama. So no money for job creation, the tax bills for 2012 won't be decided until December, budget bills, .... Right now the Republicans are blocking a plan to shrink the government by combining 6 government agencies into one for business loans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall BainIhrno Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Quote: Right now the Republicans are blocking a plan to shrink the government by combining 6 government agencies into one for business loans What, the party of small government? How could it BE? I can see what you're saying. I'm not enthusiastic about any candidate in my area, but I live in a conservative-leaning area, which will likely elect a Tea Party Republican to Congress in November. That being said, there's quite a few candidates I like, but none who I can vote for as I don't live in the area/state. While I plan to support Obama in November, he is unlikely to win my state. Looking at the Senate map, if things are in favor for Democrats, the only states I can see them picking up are MA, NV, and maybe AZ (the likely candidate is actually an independent who is running as a Democrat). Mostly it's going to be holding their ground in the seats they have now. (A very different story come 2016, where far right Tea Party Republicans will have to hold their ground). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk Death Knight Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Romney is a pretty decent choice, but he doesnt have the charisma that obama has, like someone else said. Chris Christie, if he had run, would have given obama a tough time. He's now supporting Romney which a lot of the arch conservatives like. Im not sure what will happen. It's a very risky election and i dont know if i will even vote at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall The Ratt Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Of the republicans, I like Ron Paul the most, which I think has to do with he doesn't seem to be acting super-conservative to get the nomination and he seems to be socially more liberal. My biggest problem with several of the republican candidates is that they are religious. Not that they practice religion, but that they are in your face or shove it down your throat religious. I believe it was Rick Santorum who was criticizing Obama for not donating government funds to Catholic charities, but I doubt that he would give government funds to Muslim charities. There is a reason that the founding fathers separated church from state, and a good reason it should stay that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Before Gary Johnson dropped I would have cast my vote for him, since he's an ideal libertarian. Paul is libertarian to an extent. His main problem is that he has baggage--his newsletters. He's very dodgy about it and there's really no explanation as to how he could have been unaware of their content, although I do believe he didn't actually write them. It's not in his style, and contradicts a lot of his rhetoric about drug policy. As to why he isn't an ideal libertarian: He's extremely pro-life. Although he insists the federal government should have no control over abortion, he actually voted for the Sanctity of Life Act. His views on immigration are similar to most Republicans, although he thinks building a wall is irrational and favors streamlining the immigration process (very vague) while denying amnesty. At times he even seems sympathetic toward conspiracy theorists. Despite that, I support his candidacy, with reservations. He has vocal anti-war sentiments, opposes the Patriot Act, indefinite detention, etc. and is highly critical of US drug policy. With the exceptions noted above, he's right-wing on economic issues and mostly left-wing on social issues (as Ratt noted, he doesn't pander based on his religious beliefs). He voted to overturn DADT and thinks the government should stay out of marriage. --- I find it unlikely that anyone other than Romney will win. He has far better organizational and fundraising capabilities, in addition to being favored by establishment Republicans. I'm not sure why Perry hasn't dropped out yet. Santorum is campaigning on social issues when the economy is bad. Gingrich, along with Santorum, has a fairly anemic campaign that will probably burn out by the time the Nevada caucus swings around. Paul is probably the only other candidate who could continue campaigning, since he has the organizational ability to obtain ballot access fairly easily (He and Romney are the only ones on the Virginia ballot), but I don't see him plausibly being able to win any states, although he'll probably win enough delegates to disgruntle people at the Republican Convention. Originally Posted By: BainIhrno Looking at the Senate map, if things are in favor for Democrats, the only states I can see them picking up are MA, NV, and maybe AZ (the likely candidate is actually an independent who is running as a Democrat). I highly doubt Democrats will pick up Nevada's senate seat. The incumbent (Dean Heller) has been a popular figure in Nevada politics for a long time, and he doesn't have the kind of baggage most politicians have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Erebus the Black Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Is anybody taking the comedy central nomination seriously? Originally Posted By: Death Knight It's a very risky election and i dont know if i will even vote at all. You can always vote for Herman Caine *cough*Colbert*cough*. Wink wink nod nod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I could see Paul taking the West, actually. Colorado, taken as a whole, is pretty much libertarian. We're pretty far down the line, though. Anyone interesting on third party tickets this year? The options are so bad that a solid independent might actually have a shot this time around. Do you mean Colbert running again? No, I don't take it seriously. The Colbert that's running is fictional. Stewart could make a bid at Presidency with some hope of legitimacy, but for that very reason it will probably never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug Fringy MacGee Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Edit: Bah. Server Error. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chittering Clawbug Fringy MacGee Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Romney has been coronated since he won the invisible primary, certainly after Iowa. The only real obstacle in his way is the idea of Ron Paul gathering enough delegates to make a big stink at the convention, and him potentially running as a 3rd party. I think Obama's probably going to win in either case, but if Ron Paul runs it will be a cakewalk for him. Now, the real question. Who's going to win in 2016? Chris Christie with a side of Tim Pawlenty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Tyranicus Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee Now, the real question. Who's going to win in 2016? Chris Christie with a side of Tim Pawlenty? I wouldn't discount Hillary Clinton quite so quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I wouldn't either, but at 68 by the time of the 2016 election she'd be the second oldest president ever, after Reagan. Not necessarily a dealbreaker (McCain), but an issue (McCain). And it's possible she won't be interested. She's said vague things to that effect, though that means little in politics. As for the Republican field, I would have liked Huntsman more than anyone else. I didn't agree with his politics, but I agreed with him a lot more than with the rest of the options. Romney's political record appeals to me more than what he says, but I don't necessarily find that comforting; he's got typical political honesty and integrity issues and who knows who he'd be pandering to in office. Still, he's less appalling than his opposition now that Huntsman's out. Originally Posted By: Death Knight It's a very risky election and i dont know if i will even vote at all. —Alorael, who can't understand that sentiment. If it's risky, meaning uncertain, that has nothing to do with voting. If it's risky, meaning the outcome could be bad, that's more incentive to vote. Is the not voting at all linked to the riskiness? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Enraged Slith Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Whatever happened with Pennsylvania? Have they decided to disenfranchise their voters yet or was that idea tossed out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Originally Posted By: Tyranicus Originally Posted By: Fringy MacGee Now, the real question. Who's going to win in 2016? Chris Christie with a side of Tim Pawlenty? I wouldn't discount Hillary Clinton quite so quickly. I believe Clinton is interested in retiring. That also means a new SoS for Obama's second term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm someone who believes that the federal government can be effective. I stress the "can be". Thus, I can's support a Libertarian or most Republicans. Ron Paul can stay in the election because he has cash and loyal (cult-like) support. He and Romney are all that's left on the GOP side after the redacted finish voting in SC. Ron Paul can't win the GOP nomination for many reasons. The GOP won't stand for defense cuts or his anti-imperialism stance. Too many independents/moderates/seniors/soon-to-be-seniors won't stand for his stance on SS/Medicare. A third-party run would fail for the same reasons. Romney is a true flip-flopper. Many have been painted with that label, but he really is. In this day and age of YouTube, anyone can create a before and after Romney ad, and many will. Romney is a true elitist. Many, including the sitting POTUS, have been painted with that label. Again, Willard is the real deal. Imagine him being asked any number of "how much does a gallon of milk cost?" type questions during a "debate". Lack of charisma is not his main problem. How can Obama win? Hope the economy continues slowly upward and nothing strange happens. Use the word progressive a lot. People love that word. Run against Congress, a proven tactic. During "debates," bait Romney into revealing how out-of-touch he is. How can the Dems retain the Senate (many, many Dems up for reelection--due to 2006 success) and retake/narrow the gap in the House? The economy is the main factor, particularly in the House. You would think that the utter lack of job creation ideas from the Republican-held House would work against them in 2012, but I gave up on fully understanding moderates/independents a long time ago. The GOP House has focused on social issues and Obama's defeat. That's not really the recipe for turning the economy around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Necris Omega Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 While I try not to be so terrifically closed minded, and I am something of a social conservative in many respects, I cannot foresee myself voting for any of the Republican nominees regardless of who gets on the final ballot. I am no dyed in the wool Democrat, nor would I ever be, but when the only alternative is a party I still haven't forgiven from their last presidency (not to mention the shenanigans they pulled in my home state)... We need an alternative vote system, that's all I gotta say. Well, okay, I could go on, but I won't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk Death Knight Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Originally Posted By: Death Knight It's a very risky election and i dont know if i will even vote at all. The reason its risky for me is that i have diabolically radical democrats and republicans in both my families. Going one way is a good way to get my throat cut. And before you ask how they will know who i voted for, THEY WILL KNOW. I might just vote for myself, cant go wrong with that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrulous Glaahk Yuna Corne Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ron Paul is actually fairly terrifying. A more politically astute acquaintance of mine said it more succinctly than I ever could. Quote: His stance on states rights would be awesome to behold in real life, the seething undercurrents of racism and classism would erupt into riots in the states and eventually maybe a certain few environmentally conscious states would declare civil war on polluting flyover states. His isolationism would render so many servicemen and arms development staff unemployed it would send U6 back to Depression levels. Personally, I'm voting for . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Opposing imperialism is not isolationism. Also, relaxing the federal government's power does not suddenly overturn the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution, or congress' power to regulate commerce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My rant on the subject. Be warned, it does tend to border on the polemical at parts: Click to reveal.. Okay. Cards on the table here. If you asked me in, say 2010, what party I identified with, I'd probably say Republican (Though, to be fair, I did vote for Clinton both times, and also Kerry and Obama). Not anymore. After watching the way the cookie has crumbled (and subsequently having been labelled a socialist for doing so) over the past two years, I have drawn a single conclusion supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence: Either the Republican party, or its supporters, are totally insane. I mean, two years ago after the midterms, Obama had been handed a resounding defeat, the Republican had a mandate again, and the presidential election was handed to the GOP on a silver platter. They then decided that, instead of stepping up and taking it, than now would be a good time to unleash a Mao-style ideological purge upon their party to remove everyone that didn't toe the line exactly, while pursuing an agenda that makes the Great Leap Forward look well-planned. 1. They first demonstrated a utter failure to grasp even basic economic principles by pledging to balance the budget without ever raising taxes, never mind that rates are at pretty much an all-time low despite government being needed more than ever. 2. Then, they decided that playing games with the full faith and credit of the United States and intentionally causing the downgrade of the safest investment on the face of the planet was a better idea than allowing Obama to get a routine debt increase. 3. They then refused to accept any economic plan that didn't toe the lines of the ridiculous blend of supply-side inanity and Austrian pseudoscience that they pass off as "economics", even if it included a deal of $10 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases. 4. They now seem hellbent on wrecking the EPA and disparaging any and all regulation as "job killing" (yeah, because a few hundred jobs are more important than keeping, say all of Chicago's drinking water in Lake Michigan free from pollutants from the Whiting Refinery). And that's just congress! The presidential candidates are so much worse. They've deluded themselves into thinking that Obama is somehow an ignorant bumbling fool who can't speak without a teleprompter and who has no credentials, despite being a powerful orator, Harvard-educated law professor at UC, a US senator from one of the largest states in the union, and president for four years (arguably the best experience for the job). In the face of this, the frontrunners for the nomination have been: A smarmy private equity manager who claims experience as a "job creator" despite pulling deals that would make Gordon Gekko cringe, and who takes pictures like this while blasting Obama for being "out of touch" A semi-literate Texas Governor (seriously, again?) who barely has the brainpower to scrape by with a 2.0 in an animal science major at Texas A&M who thinks that the theory of evolution, arguably the most well-supported scientific theory ever, "has some holes" A man who sold pizza for a living, with no experience in government except a brief stint in the KC Fed, and who didn't even know what was happening in Libya beyond "9-9-9" A woman who thinks vaccines cause autism in children, gays can be cured by prayer, God told her to be a tax lawyer, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, disaster that kill hundreds are God's way of telling us to vote Republican, and that Jimmy Carter causes swine flu, among other views! Newt Gingrich. NEWT. GINGRICH. And that's just the people they had as frontrunners! They've also dabbled with a man who thinks that dismantling America's military will make us safer and eliminating the department of education will make our kids smarter, and even flirted with a man who thinks bombing Iran to protect Israel is a good idea and that liberalism causes Catholic sex scandals. How on earth did it come to this? How did the party of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower come to this? These people aren't republicans! They're crazed right-wing demagogues that have somehow hijacked the party that was supposed to be the reasonable one of the two! Why is the party of fiscal discipline advocating cutting taxes even further when we have a one and a half trillion dollar defect, and what on earth went so wrong that one of the two basic political groups in the country started doubting basic scientific claims like evolution or the age of the earth or AGW? [/rant] Sorry about the rant. I tend to get rather passionate on the subject, and ever since Huntsman's dropped out of the race, it's looking bleaker by the day. I just hope that the party gets their stuff together before they go the way of the Whigs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Oh gee, thanks, because everyone who advocates the Austrian school of economics is insane. Calling your political opponents crazy isn't going to get you anywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Originally Posted By: Excalibur Oh gee, thanks, because everyone who advocates the Austrian school of economics is insane. i'm glad we can all agree on something but seriously Austrian economics explicitly rejects the use of empirical evidence. if that's not a working definition of insanity i don't know what is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I did not label the Austrian school "insane". On the contrary, it is quite sane, inasmuch that is is rigorously logical from its starting axioms (Keynes has a quote on that, but I'm sure you're familiar with it already). Instead, I labelled it "psuedoscience", which others before me have, since by applying deductive reasoning to a set of a priori principles it is not science by definition, despite seeking to cloak this fact in scientific language. By doing so, it appropriates scientific thought as intellectual justification for a nonscientific type of thought-- ergo "psuedoscience". "Insane" is a label I reserve for trickle-down Reagonomics only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lilith Originally Posted By: Excalibur Oh gee, thanks, because everyone who advocates the Austrian school of economics is insane. i'm glad we can all agree on something but seriously Austrian economics explicitly rejects the use of empirical evidence. if that's not a working definition of insanity i don't know what is Yeah, I don't actually agree with that, which admittedly, is the major tenet of Austrian school. The term "Austrian school" tends to be used more in a colloquial sense than an academic one. It's more of a blanket term for advocating free markets, even though free markets are advocated by a number of economic schools that apply different methods. Similarly, "Keynesianism" is also used in its colloquial definition more often than its true academic definition. The US hasn't actually had Keynesian policy for a long time, but people often use it to mean "whatever Democrats are doing." If you were to accuse me of using colloquial language in what should be an academic setting you'd be right. It's just that other people I meet on the internet do the same thing out of convenience (as do I), so I don't readily assume that people are using an academic definition. Even then, I don't think it's fair to label people as insane, even in that context. A lot of people hold beliefs that aren't necessarily based in empirical evidence, so labeling an idea as insane is more along the lines of needless provocation. Edit: @ Dantius, I clearly misread your above statement, but even then, there are inevitably going to a be number of Republican supporters on these forums who support the same ideas you're ranting against. (You did refer to it as polemical at times, but that isn't going to stop people from reading it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Excalibur Edit: @ Dantius, I clearly misread your above statement, but even then, there are inevitably going to a be number of Republican supporters on these forums who support the same ideas you're ranting against. (You did refer to it as polemical at times, but that isn't going to stop people from reading it.) It's just you and me, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Being a member of my own antisocial corner (one that is also purple, apparently), I do disagree with a few things you said, but agree with your rant as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unflappable Drayk Ceiling Durkheim Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 @Dantius: Who made that graph, when, and using what data? It looks interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Othar Trygvassen: Gentleman @Dantius: Who made that graph, when, and using what data? It looks interesting. I made it, several months ago, using the data provided in this thread and an app provided by the Political Compass website. To answer your probable next question, no, I'm not modifying it to include new data, because then I'd have to create a new listing of all the data and manually input it by hand onto the website, because the app's UI is godawful and hates me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Aran has a similar, far-more-crowded map which proves that Spiderwebbers naturally arrange themselves into rainbow cones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I wonder if I'm on there. I do remember doing that once, although I've drifted a bit right economically since then (although I remain in the bottom left quadrant). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 While the last hundred years or so in Republicans fail to win my vote, they used to be reasonable. Now the party is no longer reasonable. Quite a few red-blooded Republican voters have seemed dismayed with this election cycle. Romney is an acceptable, though unpalatable, choice for most of them. But yes, it's hard to be a supporter of a party that rejects science, logic, and often reality. —Alorael, who finds it only marginally easier to be a regular voter for the party that seizes no initiative, stands on no soapboxes, and bends over backwards to accommodate opponents who will not be placated by anything less than total supplication. Following politics has become like observing The Wizard of Oz: one party needs a brain, the other a spine. And where the hearts are is anyone's guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Kelandon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Of several likely outcomes, the one that gives me shivers is the Republicans keeping the House, taking the Senate, but not getting the presidency. (I don't consider the Republicans getting the presidency a likely outcome, but have all three would be worse, though in a different way.) At one point, Obama said that the people had voted (in 2010) for divided government, but not dysfunctional government. Both chambers of Congress for the R's but the presidency with the D's would be a vote for dysfunctional government. Anyone who's friends with me on Facebook has had plenty of my opinions on the elections, but in short: * I worked for a Bain-purchased company. I don't like Romney. (He's also insincere and full of bad policies.) * All of the rest of the remaining Republican presidential candidates are worse, except maybe Ron Paul, who's still not good. * Obama is better than most Democrats and independents give him credit for. * The one bright spot for Democrats in the Senate is Elizabeth Warren, who is great, will probably win, and taught a class that I took last semester. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think there are several bright spots in the Senate. We're biased toward our own states, I imagine, but I do actually approve of most of what Mark Udall's done. His bipartisan record is solid, he was one of the people pushing for amendments to the defense bill (though not part of the tiny minority who refused to pass it at all) and has also been proactive for the State. Anyone else pleased with their own representation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Obama was a pretty good senator, actually. I liked him, and Kirk's okay too, though the jokes are a little too obvious sometimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Understated Ur-Drakon Callie Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I think people will generally like their own representatives/senators more than other members of congress. That being said, I don't like any of Nevada's representation. When Harry Reid was up for election I voted "None of these candidates." We had a special election recently to replace our representative after said representative was appointed to John Ensign's former seat...I left the ballot blank. I don't like the senator/former representative, and will probably vote "None of these candidates" again in 2012. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Goldengirl Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I see a hypothetical Paul presidency as actually having the potential for a lot of good and benefit. Yes, I know that many of his policies are crazy or negligent, but a newly elected president doesn't get an unlimited mandate. I hold that the system of checks and balances between Congress and the President would force Paul to revamp or drop many of his extreme policies to actually get legislation to pass, honeymoon period or not. Obama has left me unimpressed with the state of the Democratic Party. I'm very open to a change - be it through Paul, or through a third party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Goldenking Yes, I know that many of his policies are crazy or negligent, but a newly elected president doesn't get an unlimited mandate. I hold that the system of checks and balances between Congress and the President would force Paul to revamp or drop many of his extreme policies to actually get legislation to pass, honeymoon period or not. Obama has left me unimpressed with the state of the Democratic Party. If Obama hasn't had much success getting beneficial policies through Congress, then how would the beneficial policies of Ron Paul manage to get through? Dikiyoba. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Lilith Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Dikiyoba If Obama hasn't had much success getting beneficial policies through Congress, then how would the beneficial policies of Ron Paul manage to get through? Dikiyoba. they wouldn't, but it'd be pretty funny to watch him veto literally every bill that reached his desk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easygoing Eyebeast Dantius Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Is this a chance for me to link to this WSJ article? I do believe it is! Originally Posted By: WSJ At our request, William Bernstein, an investment manager at Efficient Portfolio Advisors in Eastford, Conn., reviewed Rep. Paul’s portfolio as set out in the annual disclosure statement. Mr. Bernstein says he has never seen such an extreme bet on economic catastrophe. ”This portfolio is a half-step away from a cellar-full of canned goods and nine-millimeter rounds,” he says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Dikiyoba Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Lilith they wouldn't, but it'd be pretty funny to watch him veto literally every bill that reached his desk Maybe from your vantage point, but it'd be a lot less funny from where Dikiyoba is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Originally Posted By: Goldenking I see a hypothetical Paul presidency as actually having the potential for a lot of good and benefit. Yes, I know that many of his policies are crazy or negligent, but a newly elected president doesn't get an unlimited mandate. I hold that the system of checks and balances between Congress and the President would force Paul to revamp or drop many of his extreme policies to actually get legislation to pass, honeymoon period or not. Obama has left me unimpressed with the state of the Democratic Party. I'm very open to a change - be it through Paul, or through a third party. I really don't want a survivalist in the White House (see the WSJ link in another poster's response to you.) Your post ignores the ever-increasing power of the executive branch. There is much that a President can do without the assent of Congress. I railed against the abuses of W's administration, precisely because I feared what future Presidents would do with that power. Lo and behold, here is the guy I voted for (Obama) abusing that power and adding new abuses. I'll vote for Obama--as the lesser of two evils--but I cringe at what is coming. Obama has done a lot of good--and has signed bills into law that I cannot fathom. Paul would wipe out wide swaths of regulation on day one. Anyone who is living through the housing crisis (and has lived through the dot com boom/bust) knows that less regulation is not always good. Being back Glass-Steagall. I understand the desire for a third party. Our two-party system was already ingrained. The added boost from Citizens United v. FEC has only solidified the power of the two parties. And please don't get me started on the ineffectual FEC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotghroth Rhapsody Soul of Wit Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The polling on dysfunctional government is fascinating. 80% want more cooperation between the two parties. A slightly smaller number blame the Republicans for the divide. I'm among those who feel that Obama has been overall ineffectual in dealing with the opposition. An argument can be made that Obama has been playing the GOP like a fiddle. Public sentiment is ripe for an incumbent run against Congress. It's decidedly cynical to give up what you believe in to further your reelection chances. It is brilliant, politically, to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 How WOULD an independent or third party candidate manage a successful run? Could the population be convinced to risk throwing away their vote to change the course of history? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The Republicans started out as a third party. But in recent times the last successful third party was Ross Perot and that party was hijacked by Republican Patrick Buchanan. So unless you have a rich charismatic candidate, it's unlikely for this to happen in the near future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well-Actually War Trall Actaeon Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The Republicans almost lost major party status in the Colorado Gubernatorial election. Surely there's a moderate out there that could run as an independent. We're short on "rich and charismatic" since October. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Alorael at Large Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 There's blame to go around. Blame Republicans for not budging from ludicrous policy positions. Blame Democrats for never making a stand of their own, no matter how reasonable. But the numbers, from what I know, favor the Republicans picking up seats in Congress and the Senate; Obama's not winning any canny points there. —Alorael, who is glad to see Perry go. Now Santorum needs to get kicked out of the campaign, which will take a while after his minute victory in Iowa, and there will only be unpalatable, not monstrous, candidates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ineffable Wingbolt Necris Omega Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Given the downright legend making levels of disapproval people have for congress at this point, I see the Republican's wining simply because there are fewer of them to lose - at least in the case of the Senate... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnificent Ornk Student of Trinity Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 I'm a little out of it, but only a little, since the US campaign is in the news everywhere. The poor old Republicans do seem to have sunk low with this crop of candidates. Romney at least seems stable, but if the rest of the field wasn't so cringe-worthy, I think his money-clutching past would put him out of the running. Maybe all the good candidates would rather wait eight years. Or maybe they're only willing to wait four, and think Obama will win this one. Or maybe the Republican party is really in dire straits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatchling Cockatrice Randomizer Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 God taking the easy way out in punishing humanity. Everything I currently learn comes from the comic pages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.