Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on November 16, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
-
Is he "more of the same" that was the problem with the GOP in 2012? Or is he the future of the party?
Sources close to Rick Santorum are saying the former Pennsylvania senator and 2012 GOP contender is already organizing for a run in 2016. On the other side of the aisle, investor Warren Buffett is already touting his choice to succeed President Obama in the White House.
A leading evangelical leader who is close to Santorum and asked not to be identified, told The Christian Post on Wednesday that Santorum is "organizing and making all the necessary preparations" for another run in the 2016 Republican primary.
"Rick's getting ready organized and is not going to be behind the eight-ball when it comes to fundraising and building a grassroots organization," the anonymous source said. "I think you'll see and hear a lot from Rick in the next 12 months."
Santorum fought off a number of fellow conservatives that included Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and restaurant executive Herman Cain to be one of the last standing against Mitt Romney. Only Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) stayed in the race longer but he was never considered a major contender to win the nomination.
Soon after the election was over, Santorum and his team sent out an email to supporters hinting of another run and indicated that he and his wife Karen would be working to rebuild a party splintered by ideology and infighting about why minorities and young women are peeling away from the GOP platform.
"As a result of this election," Santorum wrote, "we now need to engage with even more energy and commitment not just in politics, but in our daily lives, to ensure that the values upon which our country has prospered will continue." And here is the kicker: "Karen and I look forward to working side by side with you to make that happen."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/santorum-organizing-warren-buffet-supporting-hillary-in-16-85029/#19zKJEu5OBGbMYmP.99
-
Is he "more of the same" that was the problem with the GOP in 2012? Or is he the future of the party?
Sources close to Rick Santorum are saying the former Pennsylvania senator and 2012 GOP contender is already organizing for a run in 2016. On the other side of the aisle, investor Warren Buffett is already touting his choice to succeed President Obama in the White House.
A leading evangelical leader who is close to Santorum and asked not to be identified, told The Christian Post on Wednesday that Santorum is "organizing and making all the necessary preparations" for another run in the 2016 Republican primary.
"Rick's getting ready organized and is not going to be behind the eight-ball when it comes to fundraising and building a grassroots organization," the anonymous source said. "I think you'll see and hear a lot from Rick in the next 12 months."
Santorum fought off a number of fellow conservatives that included Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and restaurant executive Herman Cain to be one of the last standing against Mitt Romney. Only Rep. Ron Paul (Texas) stayed in the race longer but he was never considered a major contender to win the nomination.
Soon after the election was over, Santorum and his team sent out an email to supporters hinting of another run and indicated that he and his wife Karen would be working to rebuild a party splintered by ideology and infighting about why minorities and young women are peeling away from the GOP platform.
"As a result of this election," Santorum wrote, "we now need to engage with even more energy and commitment not just in politics, but in our daily lives, to ensure that the values upon which our country has prospered will continue." And here is the kicker: "Karen and I look forward to working side by side with you to make that happen."
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/santorum-organizing-warren-buffet-supporting-hillary-in-16-85029/#19zKJEu5OBGbMYmP.99
I don't think he's more of the same.
This sounds like what I said earlier, that conservatives have had enough of "moderate" candidates getting their clocks cleaned, not sticking up for social and economic conservatism, unapologetically.
Personally, I think a governor, who shares Santorum's passion and belief, but has a track record of job creation and economic success, would do a better job.
-
Do you think Santorum will agree with the current GOP sentiment on
1) Obamacare is the law of land
2) Flexible on tax hikes for wealthy
3) Amnesty is A-okay
Along with what will probably be a shift on womens issues too.
-
christie walker
thread over
-
Do you think Santorum will agree with the current GOP sentiment on
1) Obamacare is the law of land
2) Flexible on tax hikes for wealthy
3) Amnesty is A-okay
Along with what will probably be a shift on womens issues too.
I doubt it.
As for amnesty, go back two decades or so. Reagan granted full-blown amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens in '86. That did Bush (41) no good in '88.
Reagan got 37% of the Latino vote in '84. Bush got 30% in '88.
Tax hikes aren't about the deficit. It's about class warfare and putting an end to capitalism. The middle-class, that believe taxing the rich will help cut down the debt, do so, thinking it won't effect them.
But, the libs never go after the middle class.....INITIALLY! But, once they don't have enough cash from the rich, they'll come for us next.
Santorum need to go after single women, particularly single mothers. He can do so with education, particularly minority women via the school choice route.
-
he's gassing up the clown car already!
wonder who will be next and call 'shotgun'?
-
I doubt it.
As for amnesty, go back two decades or so. Reagan granted full-blown amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens in '86. That did Bush (41) no good in '88.
Reagan got 37% of the Latino vote in '84. Bush got 30% in '88.
Tax hikes aren't about the deficit. It's about class warfare and putting an end to capitalism. The middle-class, that believe taxing the rich will help cut down the debt, do so, thinking it won't effect them.
But, the libs never go after the middle class.....INITIALLY! But, once they don't have enough cash from the rich, they'll come for us next.
Santorum need to go after single women, particularly single mothers. He can do so with education, particularly minority women via the school choice route.
Then we will let them bleed the rich and vote them out when they go for the poor :P
Do you know any rich dem Mcway?
-
I don't think he's more of the same.
This sounds like what I said earlier, that conservatives have had enough of "moderate" candidates getting their clocks cleaned, not sticking up for social and economic conservatism, unapologetically.
Personally, I think a governor, who shares Santorum's passion and belief, but has a track record of job creation and economic success, would do a better job.
LOL. You dont live in reality. If they go farther right, they wont get but 30% of the vote.
-
I don't think he's more of the same.
This sounds like what I said earlier, that conservatives have had enough of "moderate" candidates getting their clocks cleaned, not sticking up for social and economic conservatism, unapologetically.
Personally, I think a governor, who shares Santorum's passion and belief, but has a track record of job creation and economic success, would do a better job.
The conservative are arguing that Romney lost because he was a moderate and he wasn't willing to promise stuff to minorities and young voters. Why would they run a more conservative hard right candidate, who like Romney, will not promise to give stuff to minorities but will also argue for taking away the stuff/entitlements they already have?
According to their own logic, a hard right candidate would have less success reaching the youth and minorities voters than Romney. Are they expecting that voting demographic to not show up, or are they completely disregarding and giving up on ever getting them? With changing demographics, this does not seem like a very good long term strategy.
And of course there is the abortion issue. Do you think single women, a huge voting block, are going to vote for a ultraconservative candidate against abortion under any circumstances.
-
Lambs before the Hillary Clinton 2016 Slaughter
-
Santorum has been labeled "too" conservative. I personally know right-wing diehards in PA who don't like him for that reason. I honestly believe that most people don't want the government telling them who they can sleep with, who they can marry, and what they can put into their bodies.
IMO, Santorum is too outspoken on issues that Republicans need to keep out of because it's none of their f'n business. From hearing him talk, he seems like a nice, genuine, respectable guy, but he needs to keep his mouth shut about things like religion and abortion, and I sincerely doubt he can do that.
Combined with the fact that he won't be passing out anywhere near the "freebies" of the left, his campaign is doomed before it starts.
He is the wrong candidate. Especially if Hillary does indeed run, he stands no chance and should save his time and money for his family.
-
LOL. You dont live in reality. If they go farther right, they wont get but 30% of the vote.
he really seems to believe this nonsense
-
If the Republicans end up doing something as dumb as running someone like Santorum I'll vote for Hillary, Biden, Mrs. Obama, fucking anyone else.
What in the world is wrong with the GOP?
-
the crazy bible guy vs rational communist juxtaposition is so democrat fun
I say ron paul is best or gary johnson, but I will take christie walker over dem1 dem2 any day
lower gov spending and regulation and let us alll get richer
-
The GOP needs to get busy finding competent people that they want to represent their base as a whole and offer no support for the fringe candidates like Santorum. They already know Santorum will not get them in the WH because he is an idiot when it comes keeping his personal beliefs to himself.
-
The GOP needs to get busy finding competent people that they want to represent their base as a whole and offer no support for the fringe candidates like Santorum. They already know Santorum will not get them in the WH because he is an idiot when it comes keeping his personal beliefs to himself.
I really with the GOP would drop the religious shit. I don't know if that's a possibility.
My uncles a fucking minister and even he doesn't go around spouting his beliefs like these lunatics.
-
I really with the GOP would drop the religious shit. I don't know if that's a possibility.
My uncles a fucking minister and even he doesn't go around spouting his beliefs like these lunatics.
They are delusional. They assume the majority of people are on the same page as them when it comes to social issues but obviously that is not the case or Santorum would have won the nomination. If the GOP is smart they would distance themselves from these Santorum types. They need to essentially have try outs to determine who is the perfect GOP fit.
-
I think what dems miss is that bible thumpers are 5% of republican. Most of what is republican is lower government spending. Now the wheel have come off with obama spending so much and not being checked that there is even a question of separation of pwoers since congress is supposed to spend money not the preident.
-
I think what dems miss is that bible thumpers are 5% of republican. Most of what is republican is lower government spending. Now the wheel have come off with obama spending so much and not being checked that there is even a question of separation of pwoers since congress is supposed to spend money not the preident.
where'd you get this # from
I'm sure Bum and Mcway would be suprised to hear this
-
Hilary would wreck Santorum. Just demolish. it'd be like watching Lebron dunk on an 8 year old fat kid. high speed over slow motion.
imagine him lecturing her on what women should do with their bodies.
imagine him telling her about his great foreign experience, and why he's better prepared to stare down Putin haha.
Oh brother, what a mess 2016 would be. unless it's Jeb, I see Hilary beating the motherlvoin' shit out of any republican. He shall hold his own.
-
Oh brother, what a mess 2016 would be. unless it's Jeb, I see Hilary beating the motherlvoin' shit out of any republican. He shall hold his own.
No Thanks...you can keep this idiot.
Mandatory prison sentences for drug offenses. (Nov 2001)
Reduce drug use by 50% by prevention & enforcement. (Jul 1999)
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
Build more prisons; private contracts OK. (Jul 1998
Stricter penalties for drug, sex, & gun offenses. (Jul 1998)
10-20-Life: Increase mandatory minimum sentences. (Nov 2001)
Federal funds & state involvement in fatherhood initiatives. (Aug 2001)
Leave research funding to feds, not state. (Jun 2001)
Ensure access for children & adults; Medicaid for immigrants. (Jul 1998)
Import farm workers from Mexico. (Sep 2001)
Federal government should deal with criminal repatriation. (Feb 2001)
Provide licensure exams in Spanish, for free. (Jun 2000)
-
that's pretty much the GOP platform now. Raising taxes, accept obamacare, and open the borders.
Every day we hear another 1-2 names that are jumping on the band wagon. Tea party ideals are over.
The repubs are now BillClintonLite.
-
that's pretty much the GOP platform now. Raising taxes, accept obamacare, and open the borders.
Every day we hear another 1-2 names that are jumping on the band wagon. Tea party ideals are over.
The repubs are now BillClintonLite.
From what I can tell the dude is in favor of the spend spend spend motto. Plus I don't see a chance of him winning because of his bro. Too much negativity with the Bush name.
I thought you were a Ventura guy. Or maybe that was 3333.
-
The repubs are now BillClintonLite.
we can only hope and pray you are correct, sir!
-
that's pretty much the GOP platform now. Raising taxes, accept obamacare, and open the borders.
Every day we hear another 1-2 names that are jumping on the band wagon. Tea party ideals are over.
The repubs are now BillClintonLite.
Republicans would rather change the rules than ever admit that maybe their ideas are a bit to radical for the average voter. Republicans have a history of swinging even further right when their party is in crisis. Since there are few real moderates in the Republican party, I can't imagine there being enough voices within the party who could successfully convince the Republicans to move to the center-they just don't have the influence.
Also remember, Republican donors are usually hard right, and often evangelical, and these donors choose candidates who share their interests or who at least pander to their interest. If a candidate/politician wants these millionaires money, hes going to have to play ball with them. Being hard right still benefits the Republicans in local and state elections, particularly in the south, because of the way districts have been set up. Expect more gerrymandering in the future.
-
From what I can tell the dude is in favor of the spend spend spend motto. Plus I don't see a chance of him winning because of his bro. Too much negativity with the Bush name.
I thought you were a Ventura guy. Or maybe that was 3333.
I dont htink santorum is a viable candidate at all. I just like to post 2016 candidate news. That's the only interesting thing for me these days for politics.
-
I really with the GOP would drop the religious shit. I don't know if that's a possibility.
My uncles a fucking minister and even he doesn't go around spouting his beliefs like these lunatics.
SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 10:09 AM PST
Evangelicals get it; GOPers still don't
This morning on AlterNet, an article about how the Republican fantasyland was shattered on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning made the rounds. Like many of the other articles deconstructing and describing the Republican mass meltdown in reaction to their losses all across the board, it does a good job of summarizing without going on too long about it. (That article can be found below.)
What sparked this diary was the interaction between an interesting point made in the comments to that article (which I'll quote after the fleur-de-Kos), and another article I saw this morning about how evangelicals are slowly realizing that the issue isn't that Americans don't understand their positions, it's that we increasingly don't agree with them. While this has thrown the evangelical right for a loop, they are at least looking for ways to regroup. The Republicans, however, are not - instead, they're doubling down and casting about to find ways to make sure that the reason for their failure is our lack of understanding, rather than the foulness of their agenda.
Come with me over the jump for some discussion.
Here's the comment I found rather interesting from that AlterNet piece:
"The papers today and yesterday report claims by Republican leadership that their message was not the problem [sic] it was just that they didn't have the correct tactics to get that message across to the current demographics of the US."
Compare this to the second article I found, the one about the evangelical shock:
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
So it seems that evangelicals are beginning to get the point of their failure. It's not that we don't understand their message or their belief system. It's that we do understand it, and because we understand it, WE REJECT IT. As much as they dislike hearing it, they realize that it's not an issue of whether we understand (we do), but that their fundamental message is frankly revolting to us. They may blame it on the secularization of society, but they also realize that that secularization means people aren't going to agree with them on these issues - not now, not ever.
I wonder how much time it will take for the rest of the Rethuglicans to catch up to the evangelicals on this very simple point - that it isn't that we don't understand their agenda or their ideology, it's that we do understand it, and that we will never agree with it.
For example:
We do not agree that women have no right to birth control.
We do not agree that women have no right to control of their own bodies.
We do not agree that there is any such thing as "legitimate rape."
We do not agree that women should remain second-class citizens.
We do not agree that brown people are somehow of less worth than white people.
We do not agree that being brown is an automatic crime.
We do not agree that gays and lesbians are spawn of the devil, or criminal, or making a choice to be gay or lesbian.
We do not agree that abortion is murder, or that a fetus is a human being.
We do not agree that cutting taxes on the rich will make the country's economy grow.
We do not agree that rich people have the right to abuse the poor through "right to work" laws, or anti-labor laws, or anti-union laws, or refusal to provide health care.
We do not agree that bootstraps are the only way to success.
We do not agree with the lack of a social safety net or the deep cuts that are being made in it all the time.
We do not agree that education should only be for those lucky enough to have rich parents they can borrow from, or that science is the spawn of the devil.
We do not agree that the earth is 6,000 years old.
We do not agree that the President is not an American citizen, or that he was born anywhere other than Hawai'i.
We do not agree that their last golden boy, George W, did anything but damage the country.
We do not agree that the rich know how to run the country anywhere but into the ground.
Yes, we understand their positions on every one of these issues. But we do not, and we never will, agree with their positions, because their positions violate the fundamental meaning of what it is to be American.
This is what the Rethuglicans don't yet understand: those of us who voted against them, see through them. Those of us who voted against them are too smart to be taken in by their fantasy-bubble-world ideology. Despite their attacks on education, science, government, the social safety net, the poor, the brown, the female, the young, the queer - we are still not dumb enough to believe their lies.
Their strategy has always been to appeal to the stupid and the angry - heck, one of their representatives actually said they'll never reach the "elite, smart people."
The stupid people can be reached through all the things they're attacking (education and science), which is why they want so desperately to suppress those things. The angry people are dying off, and most of the people who are replacing them in the ranks of voters aren't stupid enough to get that riled up over issues that are this ridiculous. And no matter how much they try to make us "understand" their position, they will never, ever see that we do understand it - and that we have roundly rejected it.
The GOP is becoming as obsolete and irrelevant as the Whigs in 1860 - and good riddance to them. Evolution talks a lot about the survival of the fittest due to best adaptation to current circumstances. The GOP is not adapting. And like any other organism confronted with a hostile environment that doesn't adapt to that environment, it won't survive much longer.
Pass the popcorn and the Raisinets. This should be fun to watch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1160039/-Evangelicals-get-it-GOPers-still-don-t
How the Right-Wing Media's Fantasy World Caused a Republican Meltdown on Election Night
By Lauren Kelley | November 8, 2012
(http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/screen_shot_2012-11-08_at_1.59.03_pm.png)
Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com
Despite all evidence to the contrary, right-wing pundits were telling whoever would listen that Romney would win by a landslide.
November 8, 2012 | The greatest thing on television Tuesday evening wasn’t Obama’s victory speech. It wasn’t Romney’s concession speech. It wasn’t even John King’s gentle caress of the CNN Magic Wall.
It was the Fox News team’s collective meltdown when the network’s own analysts called the election for Obama.
In fact, Fox might have given us the most entertaining five minutes of cable news in television history. Karl Rove in particular couldn’t wrap his head around the idea that Romney had lost. He sent Megyn Kelly downstairs to the Fox election desk to find out what had happened. Despite one of the election desk staffers saying he was 99.5 percent sure about the outcome, Rove insisted that there must have been a mistake. If you look at the footage closely enough, you can actually see smoke come out of Rove’s ears as his brain malfunctions. At one point even Megyn Kelly couldn’t take Rove’s BS any longer and asked him if the number-crunching he was doing was “math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better.”
But it wasn’t only the on-air personalities at Fox who were shocked and appalled by the election outcome. White conservatives across the nation were caught off guard, and oh how they mourned . As the AlterNet team wrote in a post-election roundup , it’s pretty easy to see why: despite all evidence to the contrary, right-wing pundits were telling whoever would listen that Romney would win by a landslide. They attacked Nate Silver, the New York Times blogger and statistics savant, who, it turns out, nailed it . They claimed Black voters wouldn’t turn out for Obama, and plenty of other obvious nonsense. Basically, they were living in a fantasy land that did not reflect the reality of the election or the citizens of this country.
At the Christian Science Monitor , Gloria Goodale has an interesting piece on the right-wing media’s alternate version of reality. She writes:
[R]ather than the purportedly surprising election results reflecting some national subversion of the voting process, many political scientists and other analysts say this right-wing upset is dramatic evidence of a growing partisan divide in our media.
Increasingly, the public consumes media that reinforce personal views rather than give actual information about the world, says University of San Francisco political scientist Corey Cook.
“The biggest story of this election is the stories that were being told about the election,” says Professor Cook....“It was really as if places like MSNBC and Fox were talking about completely different races,” he adds.
Goodale’s sources also note that major networks like NBC share some of the blame in misleading viewers. But in their case, the deception seems to have been largely relegated to claims that the race was neck-and-neck, when in fact Obama was the clear leader in the polls; close elections are of course better for ratings.
Outlets manufacturing a false sense of drama to make more money is loathsome, but the fallout from the right-wing media’s trip to la-la land seems to be much more profound for conservatives who were given a false sense of hope. Whether many conservatives will disavow Fox and its ilk over its election lies remains to be seen. But it’s entirely possible that this time the right-wing media has gone too far. As Amanda Marcotte wrote in a blog post earlier today, “Without lies, what does the right wing media have? Not much.”
Recipe for a new dark age
Even The Simpsons mock Karl Rove
First Political Disappointment: Obama wins
IMO, the only chance the Republicans have of moving forward is to listen to guys like Bobby Jindal. If they put him out front, they may stand a chance. If they continue on their current trajectory and they'll be as extinct as the dinosaurs.
-
LOL. You dont live in reality. If they go farther right, they wont get but 30% of the vote.
Hardly!! Two moderate candidates, two big losses. And, in case you forgot, Romney actually WON the independent voters. SO, why did he lose this election?
The Latino vote? Bush went farther right and got 40% of the Latino votes. He also backed those pesky social issues. The "value voters" were credited/blamed for his win.
SAT NOV 10, 2012 AT 10:09 AM PST
Evangelicals get it; GOPers still don't
This morning on AlterNet, an article about how the Republican fantasyland was shattered on Tuesday night and Wednesday morning made the rounds. Like many of the other articles deconstructing and describing the Republican mass meltdown in reaction to their losses all across the board, it does a good job of summarizing without going on too long about it. (That article can be found below.)
What sparked this diary was the interaction between an interesting point made in the comments to that article (which I'll quote after the fleur-de-Kos), and another article I saw this morning about how evangelicals are slowly realizing that the issue isn't that Americans don't understand their positions, it's that we increasingly don't agree with them. While this has thrown the evangelical right for a loop, they are at least looking for ways to regroup. The Republicans, however, are not - instead, they're doubling down and casting about to find ways to make sure that the reason for their failure is our lack of understanding, rather than the foulness of their agenda.
Come with me over the jump for some discussion.
Here's the comment I found rather interesting from that AlterNet piece:
"The papers today and yesterday report claims by Republican leadership that their message was not the problem [sic] it was just that they didn't have the correct tactics to get that message across to the current demographics of the US."
Compare this to the second article I found, the one about the evangelical shock:
“Millions of American evangelicals are absolutely shocked by not just the presidential election, but by the entire avalanche of results that came in,” R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in Louisville, Ky., said in an interview. “It’s not that our message — we think abortion is wrong, we think same-sex marriage is wrong — didn’t get out. It did get out.
“It’s that the entire moral landscape has changed,” he said. “An increasingly secularized America understands our positions, and has rejected them.”
So it seems that evangelicals are beginning to get the point of their failure. It's not that we don't understand their message or their belief system. It's that we do understand it, and because we understand it, WE REJECT IT. As much as they dislike hearing it, they realize that it's not an issue of whether we understand (we do), but that their fundamental message is frankly revolting to us. They may blame it on the secularization of society, but they also realize that that secularization means people aren't going to agree with them on these issues - not now, not ever.
I wonder how much time it will take for the rest of the Rethuglicans to catch up to the evangelicals on this very simple point - that it isn't that we don't understand their agenda or their ideology, it's that we do understand it, and that we will never agree with it.
For example:
We do not agree that women have no right to birth control.
We do not agree that women have no right to control of their own bodies.
We do not agree that there is any such thing as "legitimate rape."
We do not agree that women should remain second-class citizens.
We do not agree that brown people are somehow of less worth than white people.
We do not agree that being brown is an automatic crime.
We do not agree that gays and lesbians are spawn of the devil, or criminal, or making a choice to be gay or lesbian.
We do not agree that abortion is murder, or that a fetus is a human being.
We do not agree that cutting taxes on the rich will make the country's economy grow.
We do not agree that rich people have the right to abuse the poor through "right to work" laws, or anti-labor laws, or anti-union laws, or refusal to provide health care.
We do not agree that bootstraps are the only way to success.
We do not agree with the lack of a social safety net or the deep cuts that are being made in it all the time.
We do not agree that education should only be for those lucky enough to have rich parents they can borrow from, or that science is the spawn of the devil.
We do not agree that the earth is 6,000 years old.
We do not agree that the President is not an American citizen, or that he was born anywhere other than Hawai'i.
We do not agree that their last golden boy, George W, did anything but damage the country.
We do not agree that the rich know how to run the country anywhere but into the ground.
Yes, we understand their positions on every one of these issues. But we do not, and we never will, agree with their positions, because their positions violate the fundamental meaning of what it is to be American.
This is what the Rethuglicans don't yet understand: those of us who voted against them, see through them. Those of us who voted against them are too smart to be taken in by their fantasy-bubble-world ideology. Despite their attacks on education, science, government, the social safety net, the poor, the brown, the female, the young, the queer - we are still not dumb enough to believe their lies.
Their strategy has always been to appeal to the stupid and the angry - heck, one of their representatives actually said they'll never reach the "elite, smart people."
The stupid people can be reached through all the things they're attacking (education and science), which is why they want so desperately to suppress those things. The angry people are dying off, and most of the people who are replacing them in the ranks of voters aren't stupid enough to get that riled up over issues that are this ridiculous. And no matter how much they try to make us "understand" their position, they will never, ever see that we do understand it - and that we have roundly rejected it.
The GOP is becoming as obsolete and irrelevant as the Whigs in 1860 - and good riddance to them. Evolution talks a lot about the survival of the fittest due to best adaptation to current circumstances. The GOP is not adapting. And like any other organism confronted with a hostile environment that doesn't adapt to that environment, it won't survive much longer.
Pass the popcorn and the Raisinets. This should be fun to watch.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/10/1160039/-Evangelicals-get-it-GOPers-still-don-t
Many of these same liberals were threatening to leave the country just 8 years ago, when Bush got re-elected. They thought they'd lost the country (see my thread about the 2004 election).
As for attacking education and science, GIVE ME A BREAK!! Liberals have been running the education system for DECADES. And isn't our country #2 in the world, in terms of education spending?
So why are our kids getting slaughtered in the education realm? Liberals have been running the show with their policies and their politicians; yet, America's kids get dumber by the year.
And as for the brown and the black and the poor kids, they're the ones who get stuck in lousy schools run by liberals and progressives. For all their talk about public education, many white libs will bail and put their kids in private schools (or decent public schools) as quickly as their dollars can take them there.
Investing in education is simply a cushy euphemism for padding the pockets of teachers' unions, regardless of how badly they suck at educating America's children.
As for immigration, this isn't about brown vs. white. It's about LEGAL vs. ILLEGAL, period. I have family members who immigrated here LEGALLY from Jamaica. They didn't sneak over here, hide in the cut for years without getting caught, pop out a bunch of babies, and demand citizenship.
My daughter's godmother and her family immigrated from Haiti, LEGALLY. They paid their dues (literally and figuratively) and became citizens the right way.
The agenda is for people to rise from poverty, not to increase the ranks of the impoverished and keep them subsidized on government, as Obama and the Dems have done.
-
The Latino vote? Bush went farther right and got 40% of the Latino votes. He also backed those pesky social issues.
wasn't the hispanic population much smaller in 2004 than in 2012?
He got a larger %, but in terms of actual voter numbers - who had more actual votes?
-
wasn't the hispanic population much smaller in 2004 than in 2012?
He got a larger %, but in terms of actual voter numbers - who had more actual votes?
Smaller perhaps, but I wouldn't say "much smaller"; not so much smaller that we'd go from Bush get 40% to Romney getting a paltry 29%.
Again, Romney got the precious independent voters, that are supposedly turned away by all the social issues stuff. In fact, I think Bush won the independent voters, too.
But, a good chunk of the base sat this one out. NOBODY thought Romney would do worse than McCain.
We were told the economy was the number one issue in this campaign. And Romney hammered that almost exclusively. Yet, he lost.
The GOP needs to combine the economic and social issues and reach to those voters, particularly Latinos and women (I'd start with single mothers). That will also ensure the base is shored up.
That is how the GOP gets back in the saddle.
-
Has Frothy blamed the queers yet for stealing the election?
-
does anyone know how many hispanics voted Bush in 04, and romney in 12? i can't find the figures.
-
Hilary would wreck Santorum. Just demolish. it'd be like watching Lebron dunk on an 8 year old fat kid. high speed over slow motion.
imagine him lecturing her on what women should do with their bodies.
imagine him telling her about his great foreign experience, and why he's better prepared to stare down Putin haha.
Oh brother, what a mess 2016 would be. unless it's Jeb, I see Hilary beating the motherlvoin' shit out of any republican. He shall hold his own.
I think any candidate would as well. Santorum is so far right, he just won't carry the independents in my opinion.
-
I think any candidate would as well. Santorum is so far right, he just won't carry the independents in my opinion.
2016 is shaping up to be a disaster as well
Hillbilly, Cuomo, Villalagroa, that scumbag from MD,
vs
Rubio, christie, jeb, jindal, Mcdonnell
-
2016 is shaping up to be a disaster as well
Hillbilly, Cuomo, Villalagroa, that scumbag from MD,
vs
Rubio, christie, jeb, jindal, Mcdonnell
Christie would be great.
Jindal...may still not be ready.
McDonnell...solid choice, but strong right. I'd worry about him alienating independents as well.
Rubio, eh...
-
Christie would be great.
Jindal...may still not be ready.
McDonnell...solid choice, but strong right. I'd worry about him alienating independents as well.
Rubio, eh...
I am so cynical right now - shit - give me bristol palin / honey boo boo
-
Rubio, eh...
Rubio would be VERY smart to keep a low profile, avoid tough interviews, stay out of iowa, and just build up an amazing resume, and stay outta controversy.
He'd a safe, AUTOMATIC veep pick in 2016, no doubt.
BUT he is very very new to washington, he's the hispanic paul ryan minus 10 years national experience...
He's stepping in shit on simple religious questions.
He's still grinning with the staged smile, trying to please everyone.
He still needs 5-7 more years to have that "I dont give a fck" swagger. THEN he'll be ready.
He should really angle for the veep slot. Let the repubs blody one another. Jeb already said Rubio's the one to pick. They NEED hispanic vote - romney probably would have won with Rubio. I hope Rubio's ambition doesn't make him jump into something he's "probably" ready for in 2016 but will be VERY VERY ready for in 2024.
-
I am so cynical right now - shit - give me bristol palin / honey boo boo
Mitt lost the honey boo boo vote when he said he preferred snooki.
-
I think any candidate would as well. Santorum is so far right, he just won't carry the independents in my opinion.
Romney carried the independent vote. You see how well it did him.
-
Santorum typifies new conservative stereotype: Creationists, hateful, angry, obstructionist.
No way he's on any ticket that will succeed.
-
Santorum typifies new conservative stereotype: Creationists, hateful, angry, obstructionist.
No way he's on any ticket that will succeed.
There's nothing hateful about Santorum. Angry? This country's has had 8% unemployment for over three and a half years.
That's something about which to be angry.
Obstructionist? Anyone who blocks Obama and the Dems from continuing this foolishness is alright by me.
Santorum needs to define himself and show how his conservative beliefs and policies can help America, especially when it comes to women and Latinos.
There will be far more poor minorities and women (along with their children), by the time Obama is done. Appeal to those voters; show Obama's futility; show that you can do better, all while sticking to your core beliefs.
-
There's nothing hateful about Santorum. Angry? This country's has had 8% unemployment for over three and a half years.
That's something about which to be angry.
Obstructionist? Anyone who blocks Obama and the Dems from continuing this foolishness is alright by me.
Santorum needs to define himself and show how his conservative beliefs and policies can help America, especially when it comes to women and Latinos.
There will be far more poor minorities and women (along with their children), by the time Obama is done. Appeal to those voters; show Obama's futility; show that you can do better, all while sticking to your core beliefs.
This is one of the many reasons why the GOP lost.
Us vs them didn't work.
Satorum comes across as a bible thumping hard core conservative with creationists leanings. From a political stand point he's a no win, then, now and in the future.
-
Saint Rick , Akin , Mourdock, etc need to go the F away! Yes - these people are poison for elections going forward
-
Saint Rick , Akin , Mourdock, etc need to go the F away! Yes - these people are poison for elections going forward
Anyone is going to be "poison", if the Dems have their way. They made Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican arguably that you could find, look like Lucifer-incarnate.
We need to quit letting the left define our candidates. They need to define themselves and exposed the Dems' agenda for what it really is.
-
Anyone is going to be "poison", if the Dems have their way. They made Mitt Romney, the most moderate Republican arguably that you could find, look like Lucifer-incarnate.
We need to quit letting the left define our candidates. They need to define themselves and exposed the Dems' agenda for what it really is.
What is the Dem's agenda?
-
What is the Dem's agenda?
From what I gather from the Getbig conservatives it is to destroy America.
-
From what I gather from the Getbig conservatives it is to destroy America.
Pretty stupid they live here.
-
Romney carried the independent vote. You see how well it did him.
Uh no...we don't know that as of yet. Going in the macros were leading that way and it was usually by a small margin or a State by State comparison. When we see the final adjusted numbers....me thinks he won't have it.
Either way, I think the hardcore approach is going to hurt him more than help him.
That and the fact that he's a BIG spender.
-
What is the Dem's agenda?
Turning this country into a neo-socialist welfare state, like those falling to pieces in Europe.
-
Turning this country into a neo-socialist welfare state, like those falling to pieces in Europe.
You really believe that?
-
You really believe that?
Absolutely! Have you heard one democrat elected to office - EVEN ONE -ever even express one ounce of concern at the doubling of food stamp usage or the exponential growth of welfare?
Dependency = Votes for the Democrats.
-
You really believe that?
Let's see:
- Poverty as near-record highs.
- Food stamp usage, up to nearly 50 million from 32 million
- Unemployment benefits, being given indefinitely, basically paying people to not work
- Encouraging illegal aliens to come over and putting them on the government dole.
- Blatant destruction of the nuclear family, encouraging more single motherhood, which leads to the aforementioned poverty and food stamp usage.
- ObamaCare
- Encouraging a mentality that people are entitled to other people's money.
That sounds like a welfare state to me.
-
Turning this country into a neo-socialist welfare state, like those falling to pieces in Europe.
The US has a debt larger than all of Europe combined so i dont understand your logic, care to explain?
-
Absolutely! Have you heard one democrat elected to office - EVEN ONE -ever even express one ounce of concern at the doubling of food stamp usage or the exponential growth of welfare?
Dependency = Votes for the Democrats.
Thats because dem states doesnt carry the growth of welfare or food stamps.
Thats the red states.
-
Let's see:
- Poverty as near-record highs.
- Food stamp usage, up to nearly 50 million from 32 million
- Unemployment benefits, being given indefinitely, basically paying people to not work
- Encouraging illegal aliens to come over and putting them on the government dole.
- Blatant destruction of the nuclear family, encouraging more single motherhood, which leads to the aforementioned poverty and food stamp usage.
- ObamaCare
- Encouraging a mentality that people are entitled to other people's money.
That sounds like a welfare state to me.
So do you think prominent democrats sit in a rooms talking about how they can create this welfare state?
How does our current state compare to the definition of a welfare state?
-
Let's see:
- Poverty as near-record highs.
- Food stamp usage, up to nearly 50 million from 32 million
- Unemployment benefits, being given indefinitely, basically paying people to not work
- Encouraging illegal aliens to come over and putting them on the government dole.
- Blatant destruction of the nuclear family, encouraging more single motherhood, which leads to the aforementioned poverty and food stamp usage.
- ObamaCare
- Encouraging a mentality that people are entitled to other people's money.
That sounds like a welfare state to me.
None of these things occur overnight and certainly didn't happen in the last four years. In the last 32 years we have had three Republican and two Democrats Presidents of the United States. Republicans have been in collectively for 20 years and Democrats for 12. The Republicans have the longest stretch of controlling the Presidency with twelve years. The Democrats have had eight, roughly four of which were under a Republican controlled Congress. Who's to blame for the current culture? I'm not taking a side but clearly the Democrats aren't solely responsible for the problems.
-
None of these things occur overnight and certainly didn't happen in the last four years. In the last 32 years we have had three Republican and two Democrats Presidents of the United States. Republicans have been in collectively for 20 years and Democrats for 12. The Republicans have the longest stretch of controlling the Presidency with twelve years. The Democrats have had eight, roughly four of which were under a Republican controlled Congress. Who's to blame for the current culture? I'm not taking a side but clearly the Democrats aren't solely responsible for the problems.
Agreed, to a point.
The Dems' criticism about the Republicans' policies is that it leaves people to fend for themselves. But, that's how this country became great: People with the drive to do for self.
What the Democrats are promoting is indefinite government dependence, which is reflected in their policies.
-
Agreed, to a point.
The Dems' criticism about the Republicans' policies is that it leaves people to fend for themselves. But, that's how this country became great: People with the drive to do for self.
What the Democrats are promoting is indefinite government dependence, which is reflected in their policies.
Do you want to ban food stamps?
-
Do you want to ban food stamps?
I do - we need to make these people actually do something for the food in return.
We need food depots where these people get bags of rice, beans, etc, not a credit card to buy pot crack booze and cigs
-
I do - we need to make these people actually do something for the food in return.
We need food depots where these people get bags of rice, beans, etc, not a credit card to buy pot crack booze and cigs
Can you buy booze and cigs and pot on food stamps? Come on
-
Do you want to ban food stamps?
What is with you and food stamps? OF COURSE NOT!!
It seems you have difficulty with the concept of such being used TEMPORARILY, to help someone get back on his feet.
-
I do - we need to make these people actually do something for the food in return.
We need food depots where these people get bags of rice, beans, etc, not a credit card to buy pot crack booze and cigs
Exactly!! Back in the day, there were actual food stamps (coupons) and you couldn't buy non-food items with it. $1 food stamps were red; $5 stamps were blue; $10s were yellow.
-
What is with you and food stamps? OF COURSE NOT!!
It seems you have difficulty with the concept of such being used TEMPORARILY, to help someone get back on his feet.
So how long should you be able to recieve food stamps then?
-
So how long should you be able to recieve food stamps then?
I'd say six months, max.
-
I'd say six months, max.
So why does primarily red states not enforce this?
They are controlled by republicans.
-
So why does primarily red states not enforce this?
They are controlled by republicans.
They should....as should the blue states.
-
They should....as should the blue states.
But then your argument about Dem policies putting people on permanent welfare vs the republicans enforcing temporary welfare is BS infact its the other way around.
-
Can you buy booze and cigs and pot on food stamps? Come on
No but you can easily trade t bone steaks for pennies on the dollar to someone willing to buy the booze and cigs. Happens all the time.
-
No but you can easily trade t bone steaks for pennies on the dollar to someone willing to buy the booze and cigs. Happens all the time.
Or sell your food stamps to drug dealers. Used to know people that did that. Sell 500 dollars worth of food stamps for a 1/16th of Meth (which was about 120 bucks at the time).
-
Or sell your food stamps to drug dealers. Used to know people that did that. Sell 500 dollars worth of food stamps for a 1/16th of Meth (which was about 120 bucks at the time).
Yep. Seen it with my own eyes. Take a group of young guys who live together and sling drugs, find a few single moms or whatever on welfare with a drug problem, next thing you know they are eating pretty much whatever they want sold in the supermarket for a quarter of the price.
-
Yep. Seen it with my own eyes. Take a group of young guys who live together and sling drugs, find a few single moms or whatever on welfare with a drug problem, next thing you know they are eating pretty much whatever they want sold in the supermarket for a quarter of the price.
I'm just kidding really, welcome to our humble home buddy.
-
I'm just kidding really, welcome to our humble home buddy.
I ain't scared of shit.
-
I ain't scared of shit.
Challenge accepted.
I bet you're scared of fat, mickey mouse t-shirt wearing, scooter riding, meth whores.
I know I am. You're never quite sure if they're going to rape you or try to run you over with their rascals.
-
Challenge accepted.
I bet you're scared of fat, mickey mouse t-shirt wearing, scooter riding, meth whores.
I know I am. You're never quite sure if they're going to rape you or try to run you over with their rascals.
The only time I see bitches riding rascals is when they are visiting The Grand Canyon on the infomercials...I'd just kick their old asses off the side of the cliff!
-
No but you can easily trade t bone steaks for pennies on the dollar to someone willing to buy the booze and cigs. Happens all the time.
sounds like capitalism/free market enterprise at work.
-
I do - we need to make these people actually do something for the food in return.
We need food depots where these people get bags of rice, beans, etc, not a credit card to buy pot crack booze and cigs
Hey liar, most people on food stamps work and you cant use them to buy pot or crack
-
any 3 hole girl will tell you that santorum is just part of the game
-
Hey liar, most people on food stamps work and you cant use them to buy pot or crack
I'm sorry. What crackhead regulations prevent the use of food stamps for procurement of said narcotic again?
Women blow guys for crack, for crying out loud. You don't think they'd use food stamps, if the dealer would actually take them?
I would take coins. I'd take pennies, if that's all a fiend had!" -- Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson, from the movie, "Get Rich or Die Trying"
-
I'm sorry. What crackhead regulations prevent the use of food stamps for procurement of said narcotic again?
Women blow guys for crack, for crying out loud. You don't think they'd use food stamps, if the dealer would actually take them?
well foods stamps are more in your wheelhouse than mine
didn't you say that food stamps are now debit cards
so the recipient would give the debit card to the crack dealer or does the crack dealer have a debit card reader?
-
well foods stamps are more in your wheelhouse than mine
didn't you say that food stamps are now debit cards
so the recipient would give the debit card to the crack dealer or does the crack dealer have a debit card reader?
I haven't been on food stamps, as an adult. All of my examples are from childhood, when my mother was on them. There were no debit cards, then.
As I understand it, the debit cards are an option. They haven't phased out the actual coupons; at least I don't think they have.
-
I haven't been on food stamps, as an adult. All of my examples are from childhood, when my mother was on them. There were no debit cards, then.
As I understand it, the debit cards are an option. They haven't phased out the actual coupons; at least I don't think they have.
I'm thinking a depot would be way more costly to the taxpayer. And once the unions organize the depot workers...it's over.
But usually, these are people in really bad financial straights. In my state, let's say a mother and child...they would have to have a GROSS monthly income of less than $1400 to qualify. So they probably couldn't afford transportation to the depot anyway, lol.
-
Santorum: 'I'm open' to 2016 bid
CNN ^
(CNN) - Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum hinted Monday he may see another presidential run in his future.
"I'm open to that possibility," the Republican said when asked on CNN's "Piers Morgan Tonight" about a 2016 White House bid.
"But we're a long way..." he added, pausing, then continuing, "I'm focused right now on trying to stay involved in the fray and make sure that we do the right thing up on Capitol Hill right now."
Santorum proved a tough opponent to Mitt Romney during the Republican presidential primary, ultimately forcing the contest to run as late as April when Santorum dropped his bid and paved the way for Romney to clinch the nomination.
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cn n.com ...