218358 Bullies, 4844 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 51 to 60 of 103
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 78910 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Devil is offline
    Devil's Avatar

    His heart was visible, and the dismal sack that maketh excrement of what is eaten.

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    6,363

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 10:44am

    supporting member
     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    There should be a "None of the Above" line on the ballot.

    I agree with the Dalai Lama on the subject of politics:

    "The world belongs to humanity, not this leader, that leader, kings or religious leaders. The world belongs to humanity. Each country belongs essentially to their own people.

    Politicians at times forget that, even in democratic countries like the United States.

    Sometimes they are short-sighted. They are mainly looking for the next vote."

    Dalai is very much like me. At least he will be after a few more years of introspection.
  2. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 10:44am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    The peace thing is bullshit liberal fantasy that all right-wingers are warmongers.
    You, of course, have polling results and stats that show a significant support within the Republican Party for Paul's position on war, foreign military intervention and the size of the military, right?

    I mean, if it's such a bullshit liberal fantasy, the polling information should be obvious, unambiguous and easy to post, right?

    Present it.
  3. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 10:51am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    You, of course, have polling results and stats that show a significant support within the Republican Party for Paul's position on war, foreign military intervention and the size of the military, right?

    I mean, if it's such a bullshit liberal fantasy, the polling information should be obvious, unambiguous and easy to post, right?

    Present it.
    You're taking the common mantra of right wingers are warmongers and attaching that to Paul's failure. You're making the claim, you prove it.
  4. Res Judicata is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,642

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 10:56am


     Style: Judo & BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    Not really. The main issue isn't the media or anything like that—that's a right-wing fantasy—it's just that there isn't a lot of enthusiasm for Romney within the Republican Party. This will matter in states such as Ohio, Minnesota, New Hampshire, and even West Virginia. One reason why the primary season this year was so silly was because of significant free-floating anti-Romney sentiment that coalesced around virtually every candidate in turn except for Ron Paul at one point or another. (Dr. Paul never got any action as there's just no desire for a peace candidate among the Republicans, and because nobody had any idea what he was going on about when he tried explaining Austrian economics.)

    This matters because in battleground states, it really does boil down to who knocks on doors on a ward-by-ward, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, basis and who drives every senile grandma to the polls and who is ready to sit in a school gym all day saying, "That guy's from one neighborhood over, he can't vote here!" And Romney's money can buy a lot of things, but it can't buy enthusiasm among those people who take organizational responsibility for electioneering on the district level.


    PS: As far as why there was all this anti-Romney sentiment, it's basically because he doesn't have any coherent political opinions. He's a smart enough guy and he actually wasn't terrible as the governor of Massachusetts (I lived under him) except for his health insurance mandate (which is similar to Obama's now that the "public option" was removed), but people who don't vote strictly along party lines vote for either a) ideas, of which Romney has none or b) personality, which is a strong negative for Romney because he's vaguely creepy and weird.
    This is a reelection. Romney doesn't need affirmative enthusiasm. He's got tons of negative enthusiasm--many people can't wait to vote against Obama. That's what happened in the 2010 congressional elections--a proxy negative vote against Obama. Let's give it a month or two as the Republican party coalesces around Romney as the nominee.

    One thing I'll give Romney: he's no push over like McLame, which I worried he'd be. He'll smile and do his nicey-nice routine as his political surrogates shred you. (Ask Gingrich...) Did you see the push back about the stupid dog-on-the-car-roof story with the (equally stupid) story about how Obama admitted he ate dog? It was hilarious and mocking.
  5. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:10am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    2
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by daddykata View Post
    You're taking the common mantra of right wingers are warmongers and attaching that to Paul's failure. You're making the claim, you prove it.
    So you have no information. That's okay, I knew you didn't—it's only because there isn't any. You're also eager to transform "no desire for a peace candidate among the Republicans" into "right wingers are warmongers", which any fool can see is a strawman. Like many people, you may have confused your own opinions, or the opinions of your Internet pals, with actual political positions held by most people in the US.

    Anyway, torn from the headlines!

    The poll showed Republicans were more willing to support military action by the United States or Israel than Democrats. Seventy percent of Republicans would back U.S. action, while 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents said the same.
    ...



    "What we're seeing is kind of a general trend that we always see, that Republicans tend to be more hawkish than Democrats or independents," said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young. "Historically Republicans have been much more security-centric."


    Leaving aside the specifics of Iran, polling in general shows this to be the case: 81% of Republican voters rank nat.sec/terrorism as an important issue for their voting this election, compared to 67% of Democrats and 69% of independents.

    This issue specifically harmed Ron Paul in important primary states such as Iowa:

    Polls suggest that Paul has a natural ceiling of support among GOP voters, largely because of his non-interventionist foreign policy views. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him.


    This trend is well-known to be persistent:

    Paul’s opposition to military intervention overseas is seen by 49 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents as a major reason to oppose him



    Much has been made of Paul's support among people in the military, which is not the same as support among hawkish Republicans (the majority), but even in practice, this did not work out for Paul. In South Carolina, for example, Paul received 12% of the military/veteran vote. Compare that to, say, technocrat hawk Newt Gingrich: 39%, or Romney: 32%.

    I can go on, but as your argument is just "Nuh-UH!" there is no reason to bother, is there?
    Last edited by Rivington; 4/26/2012 11:22am at .
  6. Rivington is offline
    Rivington's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    East Bay, CA
    Posts
    4,733

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:15am

    supporting member
     Style: Taijiquan/Shuai-Chiao/BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Res Judicata View Post
    This is a reelection. Romney doesn't need affirmative enthusiasm.

    That is what the Romney campaign is telling themselves, yes. And I suppose you support Romney as well, so that sounds comforting to you. But it's difficult to take anyone seriously who points to mid-term elections as a bellwether for a Presidential campaign. Not only are their massive benefits to being an incumbent in general—the tendency for incumbents to get a second term is pronounced and has been in our lifetimes—the particular primary season where the anybody-but-X vote was as persistent and as confused as it was shows a specific weakness in Romney this time around.
  7. mike321 is online now

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,391

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:19am


     Style: kenpo, Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Rib,

    Nice citing. I would like to see Paul's ideas debated vigorously. I think he is wrong on many, many things, but the ideas deserve a real hearing.
  8. mike321 is online now

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,391

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:20am


     Style: kenpo, Wrestling

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Sorry Riv not rib!
  9. Res Judicata is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,642

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:21am


     Style: Judo & BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    In my lifetime, we have had three presidents who did not get elected for a second term: (1) Gerald Ford (special case); (2) Jimmy Carter; and (3) George HW Bush. We have had two two-term Presidents who were reelected with relative ease (Reagan (landslide) and Clinton (FU Perot)), and one who was reelected by a hair (GWB). Getting reelected is no easy feat, especially with a down economy (Ford, Carter, GHWB).
  10. submessenger is offline
    submessenger's Avatar

    Transmaniacon MC

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Delray Beach
    Posts
    1,601

    Posted On:
    4/26/2012 11:27am

    supporting member
     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by Rivington View Post
    So you have no information. That's okay, I knew you didn'tóit's only because there isn't any. You're also eager to transform "no desire for a peace candidate among the Republicans" into "right wingers are warmongers", which any fool can see is a strawman. Like many people, you may have confused your own opinions, or the opinions of your Internet pals, with actual political positions held by most people in the US.

    Anyway, torn from the headlines!

    The poll showed Republicans were more willing to support military action by the United States or Israel than Democrats. Seventy percent of Republicans would back U.S. action, while 46 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of independents said the same.
    ...



    "What we're seeing is kind of a general trend that we always see, that Republicans tend to be more hawkish than Democrats or independents," said Ipsos pollster Cliff Young. "Historically Republicans have been much more security-centric."
    Polling in general shows this to be the case: 81% of Republican voters rank nat.sec/terrorism as an important issue for their voting this election, compared to 67% of Democrats and 69% of independents.

    This issue specifically harmed Ron Paul in important primary states such as Iowa:

    Polls suggest that Paul has a natural ceiling of support among GOP voters, largely because of his non-interventionist foreign policy views. A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll found that nearly half of Republican voters feel Paul's foreign policy views are a major reason not to vote for him.


    This trend is well-known to be persistent:

    Paulís opposition to military intervention overseas is seen by 49 percent of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents as a major reason to oppose him


    I can go on, but as your argument is just "Nuh-UH!" there is no reason to bother, is there?
    You said:
    Dr. Paul never got any action as there's just no desire for a peace candidate among the Republicans
    Which, by induction, means that Republicans desire a war candidate (whatever that is), and by extension, that Republicans desire war. Is that not what you meant?
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 78910 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.