|
This is the best article I have seen explaining the disaster of the republican party in finding a candidate for president, and Romney's failure to win the nomination: Why Mitt Romney lost[^].
|
|
|
|
|
I think that *Ouch* -Wtf? *Wow* *Heeey* -Stop that immediately, hamsters ! *Ouuuch* -OK, OK, I am up to the soapbox.
~RaGE();
I think words like 'destiny' are a way of trying to find order where none exists. - Christian Graus
Do not feed the troll ! - Common proverb
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting read, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. It is Slate after all...
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Romney is a moderate; he would have never gotten elected in Massachusetts if he had not been. Do you really think that any of those other Republican candidates could have ever gotten the independent vote? I do not think so. They had no business running, and because they did, Romney had to continue looking conservative enough to get the Republicans to select him for their candidate. Romney would defeat one extremist Republican candidate, and then another would pop up. Obama when he ran for the Democratic party nomination looked extremely progressive, which is what attracted so much of the liberal vote and got him the nomination. Then he did an amazing job of moving center. Truth be told he never was a liberal, he just was able to convince those that needed to be convinced in the Democratic party that he was. To my mind, unfortunately, Obama is a really smooth operator, and this is why he has been able to get elected.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not disagreeing.
But, "one extremist Republican candidate"... you were okay up until then...
"extremely progressive" - is just the new phrase for the same old policies. But, really "moving center"?  
This I just have to hear... can you give me some examples of how he has moved to the center? My question is with all seriousness.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Ok he is not extremely progressive, but he is progressive. Unfortunately by the time he was able to run for president rather than his party's nomination, he was painted into a corner. For some reason any time a Politian changes he views, attempts are made to attack him for being insincere. In politics, one is not allowed to learn from their errors, so we have the charge of the light brigade. Such stupidity. For some reason the Republican party thought they had an easy target in Obama, and it brought out the extremists trying to push their agenda (tea party, etc), not realizing that there was no way a candidate with those views would gain the support of enough of the independents to win.
|
|
|
|
|
Try again. Can you give me one example of Obama moving to the center? You said he was painted into a corner, but his record demonstrates EXTREME left wing ideology. It's not my intent to put you on the spot, but I would really like to know...
If you classify the tea party as an extremist organization, then Obama pegs the meter on the other side....
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
You are talking about Obama, bull. He is extremely strong on defense, having supported the buildup in Afghanistan. He was not about to get out of Iraq, but was sort of forced to by the Iraq's not agreeing to protect American soldiers from prosecution under Iraq laws (then he makes it seem like his idea, when the withdrawal was based on Bush agreement {Obama lies when he claims this). He is definitely anti-marijuana (he has not stopped Federal enforcement of stupid laws), and also leads the government that has been making it hard for companies that sell legal marijuana. Has not given the detainees in Guantanamo the legal rights any person, not just American citizens, should be guaranteed. Has openly supported executions by the US Government in foreign countries. He effectively invaded Libya and sent troops into Pakistan. He has subsidized the bail out of corporations, and not held the boards of those companies liable for the damage they have done (they all got off scot free with $100 millions of dollars for a badly done job). His health care bill is really something the Corporations will love since it guarntees lots of money for the insurance companies, which will come to be like the airlines and telephone company use to be with large profits and large overheads (what a disaster). Just search the internet. I found the following: http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/is-obama-a-conservative/ or http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2012/11/obama_the_moderate_republican_what_the_2012_election_should_teach_the_gop.html . I see much more similarity to Bush than difference. And both have proven to be spend-thrifts, doing their (unintentional?) best to bankrupt the country.
|
|
|
|
|
charlieg wrote: his record demonstrates EXTREME left wing ideology
I'm not sure you have any idea what 'extreme left wing' actually means. Obama has proposed one policy which would be centre-left in Europe – universal healthcare, something we've all had in some form or another for 50 years – and everything else he has done has been rightist. On foreign policy and defence, he's into big spending and foreign intervention: traditionally right wing positions. On the economy, he is pro-big-business, though perhaps slightly less so than the other party: again, rightist. On the environment he has not done anything radical, although at least he acknowledges it is important: centrist – but note that he favours business over environmental concerns wherever there is a direct clash, e.g. shale gas fracking, oil drilling on Alaska's north coast or coal mining by removing hilltops, so that's centre-right too.
'Extreme left wing' is communist or anarcho-collectivist. To use that term about any US politician is just ... insane, frankly.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. For those of the far right, any policy that does not support "rich stealing from the poor" is extreme left commie ideology 
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, I think I know what extreme left wing is... but we delve off into social issues.
How about totally corrupt? Would that work for you? I really don't give a toot if it's European centrist. That whole pile is going down the tubes as we watch. We're not far behind.
As far as military spending, no, he's not a big spender. We're just not getting the full story. If he were so concerned about this area, then he would have never agreed to the sequestration process. However, Congress be damned as well... (see I'm balanced).
As far as interventionist goes, liberals have far more experience in this area than conservatives, so I'm not going to give him too much credit for this.
Pro-big business? Only if you are on his political donors list....
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Last night on Fox there was a person that said that Obama would win because the people in this country want THINGS and that he gave it to them and he would continue if he won the election. This country is no long a "...ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country..." nation it's a "...I want my country to provide for me because I'm entitled as an American..." nation.
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot disagree. There seems to be little interest in helping those that need help. Somebody once told me that the country would become this way when the baby boomer generation died (I am a late baby boomer). I told them that I think it was the previous generation that cared, maybe because of the Great Depression. I do not think the people in this country will ever again be behind a war like it was for WWII.
As far as Obama giving away stuff, the only people he has really given anything away to are the corporations, and the very rich.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a baby boomer also and I look at all the marvels our generation has achieved and then the cost and wonder what my grand parents would have thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a huge difference between taking someone's private property and distributing it according to your political views and having the community help people. The American people are the most generous people on earth. Perhaps too generous.
I think the error here is that the society that "needs help" is demanding it, as if it's their right. The work ethic is sadly lacking in this generation as compared to the generation around WW2.
Not to debate the pro's and con's of the current war issues the US has, there are a hell of a lot of young men and women who are a lot older than their years show.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Taking from the poor and giving to corporations is the same as "taking someone's private property and distributing it". The basic problem here is the failure to identify "private property" correctly. Private property of the poor is still "private property"
Und wenn du lange in einen abgrund blickst, blickt der Abgrund auch in dich hinein - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, I'll bite. What the heck are you talking about?
Poor or rich, personal or corporation, it's still private property.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>You're going to tell me what I want to know, or I'm going to beat you to death in your own house.
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: This country is no long a "...ask not what your country can do for you but what
you can do for your country..." nation it's a "...I want my country to provide
for me because I'm entitled as an American..." nation.
Selective memory.
As a specific example of that the first quote is from a speech where the president was telling people that is how it should be. Not much point in telling people to do that if they already were doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure you can really contrast the two that way - Kennedy didn't mean "be a good slave to the system and be grateful for any sewer-mud we might throw your way by the way of thanks", he wasn't a Social Darwinist..
I just read his speech a couple of times again and I'm not really sure what he did mean. It looks sort of out of place and "this seems like a cool thing to say"-like.
|
|
|
|
|
I met many people from the Kennedy era that were really motivated by his attitude, and wanted to make the country greater. Maybe his speach is not speach that would go over well now. I do not believe the Obama has been motivating, but that is my opinion. As to whether some of his supporters think he is promising handouts, I cannot say. However, it does seem like many corporations are always expecting handouts, and the states expect to have corporations in their state to get handouts. What do you call a country run by the corporations?
|
|
|
|
|
Clifford Nelson wrote: What do you call a country run by the corporations?
A Western country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
But everyone wants something from their government. I've heard people say they wanted Romney because he would lower taxes, is that not the same thing?
|
|
|
|
|
_Josh_ wrote: I've heard people say they wanted Romney because he would lower taxes, is that not the same thing?
Not even close.
In one case, someone gets to keep more of the money they earned.
In the other case, someone wants more of the money that someone else earned.
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ~ George Washington
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
