Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
The US GOP Primary Results/Prediction thread [UPDATE: Santorum suspends campaign]

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 22 NEXT
 

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Doubtful, Perry's popularity both nationwide and in South Carolina has shrunk significantly since he got in. Gingrich will get a boost but even if he wasnt splitting Perry supporters with Santorum, Perry's endorsement alone wouldnt be enough to put Gingrich over Romney. Gingrich still needs to stick to the negative campaign ads and class warfare attacks.

If Romney wins South Carolina and Florida the race could effectively be over by the end of January.

Perry's 3-5% support could tip the balance if his supporters follow him to Gingrich. We've already established that he's close to Romney in the polls, and even an minor increase could tip the scales in South Carolina. About 8% of likely voters are still undecided as well, so it's entirely possible that Gingrich could win the state.

Oh its entirely possible that Gingrich could win South Carolina. I certainly do not dispute that. What I do dispute is that somehow Perry's supporters are going to be the key to victory. Think about Perry's supporters, most are social conservatives. Who do you think they are going to support between Gingrich and Santorum? Oh sure some will support Gingrich but a more likely scenario is that 3-5% gets split between Gingrich and Santorum. Perry's endorsement will help Gingrich but that alone wont be enough. He needs to have another good debate performance tonight and hope the "open marriage" news doesnt spread quickly in South Carolina.

Bymidew:

Seekster:

Bymidew:

Cool. When do we invade Global Warming?

When we get a report on their WMD program from the UN inspectors.

http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/gateway

It says they found no weapons of mass destruction. Now normally we would take this to mean that Global Warming is plotting to destroy the world but in light of Iraq we should probably be more cautious and let the inspectors continue to do their job.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
You are aware that this proposal has been under review since 2010 right? Its been delayed so Obama can get support from the environmentalists in 2012. I have every confidence that Obama would approve the pipeline proposal with little hesitation if he won re-election.

Do you know how long it takes to review just a patient? 18 months. I would hope a massive 1,700 mile project that requires coordination with multiple states' and federal departments, as well as their Canadian counterparts would take at least twice as long.

Of course I know, I live in Texas and on the Barnett Shale at that. Oil and gas stories are common in local news. I even wrote about the oil and gas industry in a town near where I went to college as part of a class project. Got to interview oil executives and town officials and everything. On top of that I have researched the Keystone pipeline extensively.

Canada approved the pipeline long ago so thats not an issue. There is some disagreement between Nebraska and the US government over what the Federal government can and cannot mandate but thats not really an issue that needs to be settled before approval knowing the federal government. Actually if you read some of the articles on the topic today many of them have the US assistant secretary of state saying that the entire process takes about 12-18 months for the Keystone Pipeline...and the reviews had been going on since 2010. Earlier in 2011 Obama was expected to make a decision on it in early 2012 but he said he wanted to wait until 2013 to give his decision (can't imagine what is so special about 2013). I remember the GOP got pissed at him for that and then later found a way to force him to make a decision now. Obama is trying to use that as an excuse to minimize the damage this WILL cause to his campaign, particularly in political donations and possibly in votes. It wont be catastrophic by any measure but there will be damage.

The Gentleman:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

The Perry endorsement may push him over the top. If Gingrich wins South Carolina (or even a close second), this race will drag on for a long time. All Gingrich has to do is keep his mouth in check.

On that note, looks like this is Romney's to lose.

Doubtful, Perry's popularity both nationwide and in South Carolina has shrunk significantly since he got in. Gingrich will get a boost but even if he wasnt splitting Perry supporters with Santorum, Perry's endorsement alone wouldnt be enough to put Gingrich over Romney. Gingrich still needs to stick to the negative campaign ads and class warfare attacks.

If Romney wins South Carolina and Florida the race could effectively be over by the end of January.

Like I said, the popularity doesn't need to be massive, just enough. If South Carolina becomes even close enough to be contested (<2%), whoever's second will have enough delegates to make it to Super Tuesday and seriously cause some pain for Romney.

Potentially yeah. If Santorum does well in South Carolina he may be able to last till Super Tuesday (which is in March, though CNN is proclaiming several "mini Super Tuesdays" in February...ratings). If Romney does win in South Carolina, even by a close margin, and then turns around and wins Florida, then yes his opponents could stay in the race but they would have little chance of catching up. In any event though the race is now down to four candidates (and lets face it, Ron Paul just isnt going to be the nominee). I cannot imagine a scenario where we don't know the defacto nominee at the end of March at the absolute latest. It is likely though that the defacto nominee will be known prior to Super-Tuesday though unless something crazy happens.

Bymidew:

Oh, bullshit. We didn't go after Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il.

Being selective beats siting back and doing nothing any day. While I wish we WOULD go after those guys (I guess Would HAVE, pass tense on Il) the fact we are going after dicators at all is better than some other countries.

Bymidew:

Bullshit. The UN inspectors specifically said he didn't. Not that Bush cared, and got even by defaming the UN to the rafters, even while waving their resolution as his excuse to get the war on.

Not that I care. You shouldnt need a reason to smash a dictator into a bloody plup, EVER! The fact they are a dictator alone should be reason enough.

Bymidew:

....Pushed by BushCo...

Who...cares?

Bymidew:

Most WMDs are not re-usable, you know. And nerve gas has a lousy shelf-life.

Doesnt matter. He was trying to obtain the capability to produce them himself after we cut him off. That way, he could try to get more gas, and continue massucuring the Kurds...you know, that group in the north that weep at our feet as we came in and called us liberators and were only a few major firefights happened, and less than 10 Americans died.

Bymidew:

No EVIDENCE (see poor Colin Powell's disgraceful UN presentation), but 'reason'. What reasons would that be? Bush's all-knowing Gut?

To say it again...*picks up megaphone, turns it to 11* BECAUSE SADDAM WAS A MOTHER TRUCKING DICTATOR THAT WAS MASSACURING AND BRUTALIZING HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!!!!

Bymidew:

Cool. When do we invade Global Warming?

Did you know that astromers have pointed out that for the past 20 years, the sun has had increased output of solar radiation and thus heat. Notice that talk of "global warming" really picked up 20 years ago, and before that scientist were freaking out over global COOLING. Global Warming is a natural process that occurs in a cycle. Quote that I saw that fits well: "We cant predict the weather tomorrow accurately. How will we know what it is like in 10 years then?" Now, ask me when we will fight pollution...

Bymidew:
You said you're old enough to vote. When did you enlist?

I assume you ARE in the armed forces now, RIGHT?

Acutally, I CANT enlist. I am going to college to get a degree in military history, and I have multiple mental and physical impairments that keep me from serving, (Aspergers Sydrome, flat feet, poor physical health, asthma, etc.) and I know for a fact that I could not take the life style. But before you try and destroy me with "You cant advocate military action without being a soldier" (you aint the first to try that pin that on me), My grandpa was in the navy in the 1970's. My uncle was in the National Guard during Gulf War '91. My Great-grandpa stormed Normandy and fought in the Bulge. My Economics teacher fought in Vietnam...and lost hearing in 1 ear and is deaf in the other. That is just the tip of the iceburg. I have spent most of the last 5 years of my life talking to soldiers: about what they do, what its like , what they think of the various wars they have been in. And the OVERWHELING majority, heck ALL OF THEM!!!!, have supported the war in Iraq and Afganistan. They dont care if the reason we went in were less than honest, all they care about is the smiling faces of the children and families who were glad that we went there and saved them from Saddam and the Taliban (respctively). Face it, I know more about soldiers and have them backing me up, unlike you. As for my service to this great nation, I am planning on joining my dad on the local volunteer fire-department while in college, then after I am done, I will join the police as a non-patrol officer (again, for the reason not to be a soldier), or I will work in a history museum, or I will be a history teacher. Something that I can give back to this great nation. I am going to serve my country any way I can, just not the military because Its just not for me (although, if I could get in as a weapon designer...)

...You're move now, troll know as Bymidew.

Seekster:
In addition to this I expect Obama is going to be criticized in the same sentence as the words "oil", "Canada", and "pipeline" for a while. Seriously, that was just stupid of the President.

Im with you on that one. That pipeline would have gone within 50 miles of my home, and I was STILL saying "What are we waitin' for. Times A-wasten." The whole argument of "But, the Ogalala" is crap, there are over 2,000!!!! miles of oil pipes running across it and the last time one broke was in 1978. And last time I checked, my water isnt black when I turn on the tap.

This decision was ALL politics, which is sad because it would have REALLY helped the energy situation in this country. But NO, the Obama pandering to evironmentalist takes to priority.

-_-'

Little update from tonight's debate. All four Republican candidates have said they are against SOPA.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Oh, bullshit. We didn't go after Mugabe or Kim Jong-Il.

Being selective beats siting back and doing nothing any day. While I wish we WOULD go after those guys (I guess Would HAVE, pass tense on Il) the fact we are going after dicators at all is better than some other countries.

If Bush was going to be "selective", maybe he could've gone after, y'know...the guy who WAS responsible for 9/11? Or the one who actually DID get nukes on his watch?

Yeah, crazy idea, I know.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Bullshit. The UN inspectors specifically said he didn't. Not that Bush cared, and got even by defaming the UN to the rafters, even while waving their resolution as his excuse to get the war on.

Not that I care. You shouldnt need a reason to smash a dictator into a bloody plup, EVER! The fact they are a dictator alone should be reason enough.

"A dictator who ISN'T currently being propped up by the USA", I presume you mean? You seem to be aware that Hussein was a US client for quite a while.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Most WMDs are not re-usable, you know. And nerve gas has a lousy shelf-life.

Doesnt matter. He was trying to obtain the capability to produce them himself after we cut him off. That way, he could try to get more gas, and continue massucuring the Kurds...you know, that group in the north that weep at our feet as we came in and called us liberators and were only a few major firefights happened, and less than 10 Americans died.

Ten Americans died? What happened to the other 33176?

And you ARE aware the Saddam didn't need nerve-gas to kill Kurds, right?

BOOM headshot65:

To say it again...*picks up megaphone, turns it to 11* BECAUSE SADDAM WAS A MOTHER TRUCKING DICTATOR THAT WAS MASSACURING AND BRUTALIZING HIS OWN PEOPLE!!!!!!

That's never stopped the US from propping up a thug before, why now?

And when do we start with the ones we're supporting NOW?

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Cool. When do we invade Global Warming?

Did you know that astromers have pointed out that for the past 20 years, the sun has had increased output of solar radiation and thus heat.

Those ignorant hippies at Stanford University disagree with you. But what do THEY know, eh? They're only climatologists, not talk radio hosts!

BOOM headshot65:

Notice that talk of "global warming" really picked up 20 years ago, and before that scientist were freaking out over global COOLING.

One article in Newsweek does not constitute "freaking out".
If scientists are wrong about something once, you never believe them on anything ever again? I wish you'd apply that sort of skepticism to politicians.

BOOM headshot65:

Global Warming is a natural process that occurs in a cycle. Quote that I saw that fits well: "We cant predict the weather tomorrow accurately. How will we know what it is like in 10 years then?"

I can predict that here in North America, it will be mostly warmer in 5 months than it is now. How? MAGIC!

BOOM headshot65:

Now, ask me when we will fight pollution...

I don't have to, because I know the answer. "Never, because it might suppress the FREE MARKET(tm)."

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:
You said you're old enough to vote. When did you enlist?

I assume you ARE in the armed forces now, RIGHT?

Acutally, I CANT enlist. I am going to college to get a degree in military history, and I have multiple mental and physical impairments that keep me from serving, (Aspergers Sydrome, flat feet, poor physical health, asthma, etc.) and I know for a fact that I could not take the life style.

Well, at least you're honest about it. That puts you one up on the War Wimps in the GOP.

BOOM headshot65:

And the OVERWHELING majority, heck ALL OF THEM!!!!, have supported the war in Iraq and Afganistan. They dont care if the reason we went in were less than honest, all they care about is the smiling faces of the children and families who were glad that we went there and saved them from Saddam and the Taliban (respctively).

I guess you never met these guys, then.

Edit to add: And if you cared at all about J. Random Iraqi as anything other than a trophy of American Supremacy, you should be even more mad that I am about the way BushCo completely BOTCHED everything in Iraq after the initial invasion.

Amusing observation: With Perry out of the race, all three of the idiots candidates who claimed in public that God wanted them to be President are...not going to be.

I begin to suspect that the One who told them that was actually Eris in a fake beard. I hope She can ensure that the remainder keep the chaos going, as this is the most fun I've had watching Republicans in YEARS.

Also, some suggested headlines I've seen:

"Perry Pulls Out, Leaving Santorum between Newt and Romney"
"Perry unable to keep his head above rising Santorum"

Bymidew:

If Bush was going to be "selective", maybe he could've gone after, y'know...the guy who WAS responsible for 9/11? Or the one who actually DID get nukes on his watch?

You mean Bin Ladin? You know, the guy who is now literally fish-food due to the war Bush started and intel/intel gathering practices started by Bush.

As for the one with nukes, yes, I am upset we didnt get him either...hence why I want us to turn Iran into a smoldering crater now.

Bymidew:

"A dictator who ISN'T currently being propped up by the USA", I presume you mean? You seem to be aware that Hussein was a US client for quite a while.

No. I mean ALL!!!! dictators. It is a shame that we support dictators abroad, but the ones we do/did support are dropping like flies, as they should.

Bymidew:

Ten Americans died? What happened to the other 33176?

And you ARE aware the Saddam didn't need nerve-gas to kill Kurds, right?

10 died in the NORTH. All other people who died where in the south and middle region....wait a second, where the HELL!!! did you get 33,176 from?!?! The worst cause estimates out there say we only lost around 7,000 at WORST.

And I am aware he didnt use nerve-gas. He used Serin Gas, Mustard Gas, and various other chemical weapons.

Bymidew:

That's never stopped the US from propping up a thug before, why now?

And when do we start with the ones we're supporting NOW?

Congradualtion, you just pointed out several of the dictators and dictatorships that are on my "Turn to a smoldering crater" list. However, if the Saudi keep up thier democratic reforms, then they will leave, but for now, it is still an embarrasment to the US that we support those guy (most of them being left over from trying to stop the soviets.

Bymidew:

Those ignorant hippies at Stanford University disagree with you. But what do THEY know, eh? They're only climatologists, not talk radio hosts!

Oh nos, someone who thinks that because I am republican and dont believe that global warming is man-made, I MUST be a Rush Limbaugh zombie.

Breaking News flash: I am ok with the man as a person, but his political view freak me the hell out!

It is also common knowledge that there is almost no communication between different sciences. Climate Scientist said 20 years ago "Oh nos, the global tempature is rising. Why is that? It must be man-made global warming!" Meanwhile, with some astronomers "Hey, we just found out solar output is up, should we tell the climate scientist?" "Nah."

Also, as someone who lives in farm country, I know some farmers have said "Why WOULDNT global warming be a good thing?" Warmer weather means a longer growing season, which means more yield, which means more food. Seriously, why doesnt anyone look at the BENEFITS of having a warmer world. I can think of several.

Bymidew:

I can predict that here in North America, it will be mostly warmer in 5 months than it is now. How? MAGIC!

Sure, because it will be Summer. Summer is a season that comes around every year, without fail. Its almost like its a PATTERN. Like how the earth gets warmer is few million years, then cools of for a few million years.

Bymidew:

I don't have to, because I know the answer. "Never, because it might suppress the FREE MARKET(tm)."

WRONG!!!!
Short answer: We should be right now.
Long answer: I recycle, I bike when I can (kind of hard to do 20 miles from the nearest city), and I do other things to keep the pollution down on my part. Europe and North America are at a pretty good point with pollution reduction. Now we need to get the rest of the world to follow suit. If global warming IS man-made, than it is a GLOBAL problem. We will never solve it if we let countries like China and Iran, among others, get away with rampant pollution. Now, I am hoping that that scientist that I read about is able to get his machine that turns greenhouse gasses into Oil gets it done. THAT would help the global situation alot. Oil would become a renewable resource, and burning it would make more oil rather than pollution.

Bymidew:

I guess you never met these guys, then.

No, I havent. They DO NOT EXIST where I live. From what the active duty guys I have talked to told me, they are concentrated on the West and East Coast (wouldnt suprise me) and that those guys are an EXTREME MINORITY. If they didnt approve of being sent to war, then they didnt have to enlist and if already in, could have requested a discharge. I wonder why they didnt? *looks at overload of benefits programs for the military*

Bymidew:

Edit to add: And if you cared at all about J. Random Iraqi as anything other than a trophy of American Supremacy, you should be even more mad that I am about the way BushCo completely BOTCHED everything in Iraq after the initial invasion.

Oh no, I stand by you on that ONE thing. We DID screw up in the opening stages of the war. But this an "ends justifies the means" moment. We DID screw up in the opening stages, what with Rumsfields "Charge to the capital, ignore all else" plan, his "troops wont need body armor" mentailty, and others. Later in the war, like 2006-2011, we really got our crap together, so things got better. In the end, the Iraqis now have a democracy that will hopeful stand the test of time, and when they look back in the history books and say "who saved us and gave us the chance to become a democracy?" They will hopefully remember the 4,000 American men and women who laid down thier lives for them to be free.

Oh, and one more question. I have said how I am serving my country. How are YOU serving your country?

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

If Bush was going to be "selective", maybe he could've gone after, y'know...the guy who WAS responsible for 9/11? Or the one who actually DID get nukes on his watch?

You mean Bin Ladin? You know, the guy who is now literally fish-food due to the war Bush started and intel/intel gathering practices started by Bush.

Bush invaded Afghanistan. Any US President that HADN'T invaded Afghanistan at that point would have been impeached.

He then half-assed it by moving all the troops to Iraq because shut up. So, it took AN ENTIRE DECADE and a different President to _actually_ kill the mastermind behind 9/11.

Mission Accomplished, huh?

BOOM headshot65:

As for the one with nukes, yes, I am upset we didnt get him either...hence why I want us to turn Iran into a smoldering crater now.

Oh, good plan. There's nothing like genocide to show out commitment to world peace.

BOOM headshot65:

10 died in the NORTH. All other people who died where in the south and middle region....wait a second, where the HELL!!! did you get 33,176 from?!?! The worst cause estimates out there say we only lost around 7,000 at WORST.

Whoops. I got wounded mixed up with dead. My fault for replying to you, and then giving it the attention you deserve.

I guess all those dead Iraqis don't count for anything, anyway. They died for OIL FREEDOM! And we didn't need that money for anything like bridges or schools, right?

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Those ignorant hippies at Stanford University disagree with you. But what do THEY know, eh? They're only climatologists, not talk radio hosts!

It is also common knowledge that there is almost no communication between different sciences. Climate Scientist said 20 years ago "Oh nos, the global tempature is rising. Why is that? It must be man-made global warming!" Meanwhile, with some astronomers "Hey, we just found out solar output is up, should we tell the climate scientist?" "Nah."

I repeat, Those ignorant hippies at Stanford University disagree with you. Even adjusting for solar activity, they're still pretty sure it's because of raised CO2 amounts.

BOOM headshot65:

Also, as someone who lives in farm country, I know some farmers have said "Why WOULDNT global warming be a good thing?" Warmer weather means a longer growing season, which means more yield, which means more food. Seriously, why doesnt anyone look at the BENEFITS of having a warmer world. I can think of several.

How quickly they forget. I'm sure even HOTTER summers won't be bad for the crops, right?
On the bright side, I hear the Russians are looking forward to not needing to buy US grain.

BOOM headshot65:

Sure, because it will be Summer. Summer is a season that comes around every year, without fail. Its almost like its a PATTERN. Like how the earth gets warmer is few million years, then cools of for a few million years.

Funny thing about that cycle - it doesn't seem to deal well with us having twice as much carbon in the atmosphere than any time in the last 400,000 years.

But hey, I'm SURE it will correct itself, eventually! And it won't affect YOU ALMIGHTY in any way, right?

BOOM headshot65:
If global warming IS man-made, than it is a GLOBAL problem. We will never solve it if we let countries like China and Iran, among others, get away with rampant pollution.

That's a whole lotta letters to say "Nuh-uh, YOU FIRST".

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

I guess you never met these guys, then.

No, I havent. They DO NOT EXIST where I live. From what the active duty guys I have talked to told me, they are concentrated on the West and East Coast (wouldnt suprise me) and that those guys are an EXTREME MINORITY. If they didnt approve of being sent to war, then they didnt have to enlist and if already in, could have requested a discharge. I wonder why they didnt? *looks at overload of benefits programs for the military*

Maybe because when they joined up, the guy in the White House wasn't a psychopathic manchild with a personal vendetta?

BOOM headshot65:

Oh, and one more question. I have said how I am serving my country. How are YOU serving your country?

By trying to keep idiot Republicans OUT of public office. Sorry, guys, you had a decade to show us your stuff, and it all plainly SUCKED for everyone who wasn't already a while male billionaire.

The Gentleman:
To mark Rick Perry's departure from the campaign, I give you the Top 8 Rick Perry "I really wish I never did that on Camera" moments

Pft, I prefer to mark Rick Perry's leaving in style (and I promise this is the last time I will make this joke...I think):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1063893612084739337

Feel free to enjoy the lyrics and just assume its Rick Perry singing.

Bymidew:

Bush invaded Afghanistan. Any US President that HADN'T invaded Afghanistan at that point would have been impeached.

He then half-assed it by moving all the troops to Iraq because shut up. So, it took AN ENTIRE DECADE and a different President to _actually_ kill the mastermind behind 9/11.

Mission Accomplished, huh?

Yep. Those people are now free to be thier own people, and not be mercilessly brutalized by a menevolent dictator. A job well done in the long run.

Bymidew:

Oh, good plan. There's nothing like genocide to show out commitment to world peace.

If you mean "Invade the country, shut down all nuclear related material, confiscate any and all bomb-building material, and overthrow the Ayatollah's, and put a republic or democracy in place" Then yes, that is a excellent plan.

BOOM headshot65:

10 died in the NORTH. All other people who died where in the south and middle region....wait a second, where the HELL!!! did you get 33,176 from?!?! The worst cause estimates out there say we only lost around 7,000 at WORST.

Whoops. I got wounded mixed up with dead. My fault for replying to you, and then giving it the attention you deserve.

I guess all those dead Iraqis don't count for anything, anyway. They died for OIL FREEDOM! And we didn't need that money for anything like bridges or schools, right?
You know, its kind of hard to avoid killing civilians when your enemies use coward tactics and uses civilians as body shields. And I beileve that we are good enough off here in America. Sure, things can be better, but we sould help people around the world.

Bymidew:

I repeat, Those ignorant hippies at Stanford University disagree with you. Even adjusting for solar activity, they're still pretty sure it's because of raised CO2 amounts.

Times like this that I wish that the scientist that is making the machine that absorbs CO2 and turns it into oil you get it done earlier. -_-

Bymidew:

How quickly they forget. I'm sure even HOTTER summers won't be bad for the crops, right?
On the bright side, I hear the Russians are looking forward to not needing to buy US grain.

The Dust Bowl was caused by a lack of trees and grass to keep dust down. Plus, we now have improved irrigation which will allow use to water down the dirt to keep it from blowing away. Dont try and say you know more about farming and the farm ecosystem. I live on a farm, and all of the people who live near me are farmers. Just dont try it.

Bymidew:

That's a whole lotta letters to say "Nuh-uh, YOU FIRST".

Alright then. Give up your car, because its polluting. Oh, and dont forget to forgo heating and air conditioning, thats from a polluting power plant. And wy am I even hearing from you, a computer requires power from said power plant.

Bymidew:

Maybe because when they joined up, the guy in the White House wasn't a psychopathic manchild with a personal vendetta?

Well, the fact stands, THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED A DISCHARGE!! If they didnt like the leadership.

Bymidew:

By trying to keep idiot Republicans OUT of public office. Sorry, guys, you had a decade to show us your stuff, and it all plainly SUCKED for everyone who wasn't already a while male billionaire.

So that is just you saying "I will not serve my country because I dont like Republicans." Even though half the US is Republican:

image
That is a map of how people voted in 2008. Notice, most of the map is Red (Republican) while the places with the most votes/people are Blue (Democrat).

BOOM headshot65:
So that is just you saying "I will not serve my country because I dont like Republicans." Even though half the US is Republican:

image
That is a map of how people voted in 2008. Notice, most of the map is Red (Republican) while the places with the most votes/people are Blue (Democrat).

I don't suppose you'd care to bring a map of the population density of the United States to compare? Or a map with different shades to show how much of the state voted Republican (100% and 51% are very, very different).

BOOM headshot65:
So that is just you saying "I will not serve my country because I dont like Republicans." Even though half the US is Republican:

image
That is a map of how people voted in 2008. Notice, most of the map is Red (Republican) while the places with the most votes/people are Blue (Democrat).

Typical example of a map made with a political purpose in mind.

In that case the mapmaker is using the fact that areas mostly republican are rural, less developed and sparsely populated. By colouring those uniformly, the mapmaker is vastly exagerating how many actual republicans there are in the US, and using the 'first past the post' system to try and present it like no Democrats or others exist in that area.

Long story short: that map is useless.

BOOM headshot65:
Yep. Those people are now free to be thier own people, and not be mercilessly brutalized by a menevolent dictator. A job well done in the long run.

The US created Saddam, spending billions of US tax payers dollars supplying him with WMDs in the late 1980s, despite KNOWING that Saddam was using these WMD against civillians and Iranians in violation of the Geneva convention / UNSC rules.

Then the US spent nearly a trillion tax payers dollars cleaning up the mess they have created.

All the while posioning Iraqis and US troops by failing to provide protection against the radiation it has spread across Iraq.

BOOM headshot65:
Times like this that I wish that the scientist that is making the machine that absorbs CO2 and turns it into oil you get it done earlier. -_-

LOL!

You do know what that energy source that system requires to make it viable (to split CO2 into CO and O2)?

Renewable energy....

Shaoken:
I don't suppose you'd care to bring a map of the population density of the United States to compare? Or a map with different shades to show how much of the state voted Republican (100% and 51% are very, very different).

Blablahb:
In that case the mapmaker is using the fact that areas mostly republican are rural, less developed and sparsely populated. By colouring those uniformly, the mapmaker is vastly exagerating how many actual republicans there are in the US, and using the 'first past the post' system to try and present it like no Democrats or others exist in that area.

Long story short: that map is useless.

Actually, that one is a map of how each COUNTY, not state, voted in the presidential elections. That is why there is a little blue mark in the middle of Kansas, which is normally hard-core republican. Although, I will Admit, it is poorly designed. The one from 2004 is MUCH better:

image

Now for a map of population density:
image
(blue equals heavy, green equals sparce.)

And while I cant find the exact membership for each party, I know that historically, unless something completely over the moon crazy happens or a president is REALLY good, the usual for voting is 50% Republican, 46% Democrat, 4% 3rd party. The point I was trying to make to that troll though was that there are hundreds of millions of people in the republican party streching in territory all across the US. I was miffed that he was making republicans...ALL REPUBLICANS!!! to be evil people.

To add to Boom's points. There are more Americans who self-identify as Conservatives than there are those who self-identify as Moderates and there are more who self-identify as Moderates than self-identify as Liberals. The following poll is fairly typical:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150611/Democrats-Liberal-Less-White-2008.aspx?utm_source=add%2Bthis&utm_medium=addthis.com&utm_campaign=sharing#.TxCCv3MWB9s.twitter

So to apply this, its true both Democrats and Republicans needs to win over moderates, however if both parties can get their bases to come out and vote then the Republicans have to win less moderates.

Oh god it's like watching Clothahump vs. Der Trihs on Straight Dope Message Boards - the radical liberal vs. the conservative with brain functionality akin to Congress's public approval rating. Painful to watch. Bymidew, you seem to be new here, so let me explain: 65 is simply not worth debating. At all. In order to make any progress, you have to force-feed him information. And even then, you need sit there making sure he doesn't either puke it up or claim that it means something completely different. And even then, you still have to deal with such wonderful things as this:

BOOM headshot65:

I dont want us to be the worlds police. I want us to be the worlds SWAT team. They police themselves, but if it gets out of hand, we come in to help out.

When someone fails to understand the issue with the Bush doctrine and the idea of taking out dictators at any cost for no reason beyond "they're dictators", and advocates the US basically invading everywhere from Chile to North Korea, the costs and sacrificed lives be damned... I'll just say that he has a somewhat... "different" view on morality than most of us have. The Aspergers probably isn't helpful.

Stagnant:
Oh god it's like watching Clothahump vs. Der Trihs on Straight Dope Message Boards - the radical liberal vs. the conservative with brain functionality akin to Congress's public approval rating. Painful to watch. Bymidew, you seem to be new here, so let me explain: 65 is simply not worth debating. At all. In order to make any progress, you have to force-feed him information. And even then, you need sit there making sure he doesn't either puke it up or claim that it means something completely different. And even then, you still have to deal with such wonderful things as this:

BOOM headshot65:

I dont want us to be the worlds police. I want us to be the worlds SWAT team. They police themselves, but if it gets out of hand, we come in to help out.

When someone fails to understand the issue with the Bush doctrine and the idea of taking out dictators at any cost for no reason beyond "they're dictators", and advocates the US basically invading everywhere from Chile to North Korea, the costs and sacrificed lives be damned... I'll just say that he has a somewhat... "different" view on morality than most of us have. The Aspergers probably isn't helpful.

Well now, look what the cat dragged in. A rat called Stagnant, that has been infected with a "high and mighty" attitude and hint of "holier than thou" syndrome.

And my view on morality is that if you kill in cold blood (exemting self-defense, etc), than you...deserve...to.....DIE!!!!! As brutally and painfully as possible. Saddam getting hanged was a mercy in my opinion.

And why isnt "theyre dictators" a good reason?!?! Now granted, I make the exception with benevolent dictators (the REAL ones, not the dictator that says he is then shoots someone for disagreeing with him). Everyone on this planet should have the right to live in peace and freedom, and as long as they are under a dictator, that WILL NOT HAPPEN!!!!
Hence, dictators must die, so peace and freedom can rain.

Also, are you implying that my Aspergers has somehow skewed my sense of morality and purpose. I'd say if anything, it has made them stronger and more focused, cast in concrete to make sure they dont move an inch of where they should be.

Stagnant:
Oh god it's like watching Clothahump vs. Der Trihs on Straight Dope Message Boards - the radical liberal vs. the conservative with brain functionality akin to Congress's public approval rating. Painful to watch. Bymidew, you seem to be new here, so let me explain: 65 is simply not worth debating. At all. In order to make any progress, you have to force-feed him information. And even then, you need sit there making sure he doesn't either puke it up or claim that it means something completely different. And even then, you still have to deal with such wonderful things as this:

BOOM headshot65:

I dont want us to be the worlds police. I want us to be the worlds SWAT team. They police themselves, but if it gets out of hand, we come in to help out.

When someone fails to understand the issue with the Bush doctrine and the idea of taking out dictators at any cost for no reason beyond "they're dictators", and advocates the US basically invading everywhere from Chile to North Korea, the costs and sacrificed lives be damned... I'll just say that he has a somewhat... "different" view on morality than most of us have. The Aspergers probably isn't helpful.

Stagnant I was enjoying that. I'm sure I feel the same way about Boom as you feel about Stagnant but its kind of a false equivalency to criticize BOOM whilst talking to Bymidew.

Both are new here and seem to be very spirited and partisan. Best to let them have at each other until they wear each other out.

Also there was absolutely no reason to insult the intellect of either of them.

Anyway lets both stay out of this and see how it turns out.

Should I even bother? I don't know what I should say to someone who so avidly supports murder and completely ignores:
- The background reasons behind a dictator coming to power in the first place - take a look at the newly-liberated middle-eastern states to see exactly what I'm talking about
- The idea of a benevolent, well-liked, successful dictator
- The problem of giving democracy to those who don't want it to begin with
- A whole host of other important issues involved.

Nope, it's clear black-and-white the whole way. Obviously.

Seekster:
Stagnant I was enjoying that. I'm sure I feel the same way about Boom as you feel about Stagnant but its kind of a false equivalency to criticize BOOM whilst talking to Bymidew.

Both are new here and seem to be very spirited and partisan. Best to let them have at each other until they wear each other out.

Perhaps a little background is in order: Der Trihs is not the brightest bulb on the tree. Sure, he's not horrible, but he's also radical, outspoken, somewhat underinformed of large-scale meanings of actions, and opens his mouth much too often. Reminiscent of Michael Moore, primarily. Whereas Clothahump is essentially what you get if you take out half of Anne Coulter's brain and all of her charisma. It'd be almost as fair to reverse the roles, and tell BOOM that Bymidew is not worth debating with - albeit for slightly different reasons: they're NEVER going to see eye to eye.

That said, I disagree on this point:

Also there was absolutely no reason to insult the intellect of either of them.

I feel it is reasonable to call both the intelligence and morality of BOOM into question, for reasons that should be plainly visible in his posting style and history.

Anyway lets both stay out of this and see how it turns out.

Probably for the best - the further I am from this guy, the better.

Stagnant:

Seekster:
Stagnant I was enjoying that. I'm sure I feel the same way about Boom as you feel about Stagnant but its kind of a false equivalency to criticize BOOM whilst talking to Bymidew.

Both are new here and seem to be very spirited and partisan. Best to let them have at each other until they wear each other out.

Perhaps a little background is in order: Der Trihs is not the brightest bulb on the tree. Sure, he's not horrible, but he's also radical, outspoken, somewhat underinformed of large-scale meanings of actions, and opens his mouth much too often. Reminiscent of Michael Moore, primarily. Whereas Clothahump is essentially what you get if you take out half of Anne Coulter's brain and all of her charisma. It'd be almost as fair to reverse the roles, and tell BOOM that Bymidew is not worth debating with - albeit for slightly different reasons: they're NEVER going to see eye to eye.

That said, I disagree on this point:

Also there was absolutely no reason to insult the intellect of either of them.

I feel it is reasonable to call both the intelligence and morality of BOOM into question, for reasons that should be plainly visible in his posting style and history.

Anyway lets both stay out of this and see how it turns out.

Probably for the best - the further I am from this guy, the better.

Oh I know they wont be seeing eye to eye, I just wanted to see how long it would take either for them to realize that or for one or the other to rage quit or get banned for personal insults.

"I feel it is reasonable to call both the intelligence and morality of BOOM into question, for reasons that should be plainly visible in his posting style and history."

You do what you want (though I would advise reading the tos or whatever the rule post is called). I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt on this forum as far as intelligence goes and as for morality, come on, if I am not allowed to impose my morality on you why are you imposing it on me (or other people in this case)?

Stagnant:
Bymidew, you seem to be new here, so let me explain: 65 is simply not worth debating. At all. In order to make any progress, you have to force-feed him information. And even then, you need sit there making sure he doesn't either puke it up or claim that it means something completely different.

Thanks for the warning, but I've argued with plenty of Factory-Extruded Republicans before. I'm well aware of the futility of trying to convince them they're wrong, this is for the edification of anyone who might otherwise believe his BS.

And even THAT is like cleaning the Augean Stables with a toothbrush, admittedly.

BOOM headshot65:

Yep. Those people are now free to be thier own people, and not be mercilessly brutalized by a menevolent dictator. A job well done in the long run.

Not until a new one takes over, when the US takes off after the next shiny object.

BOOM headshot65:

Bymidew:

Oh, good plan. There's nothing like genocide to show out commitment to world peace.

If you mean "Invade the country, shut down all nuclear related material, confiscate any and all bomb-building material, and overthrow the Ayatollah's, and put a republic or democracy in place" Then yes, that is a excellent plan.

No, I meant WHAT YOU SAID:

BOOM headshot65:
As for the one with nukes, yes, I am upset we didnt get him either...hence why I want us to turn Iran into a smoldering crater now.

Which is NOT the same thing as what you're saying you said now. Conversations with the voices in your head don't count, because WORDS MEAN THINGS.

BOOM headshot65:

And I beileve that we are good enough off here in America. Sure, things can be better, but we sould help people around the world.

By the sanctified feces of J. R. Dobbs, something we AGREE ON!

...except when I say 'help' I mean things like drinkable water and food and such, and you probably mean "blowing things up like a TF2 demoman being played by an overcaffienated 12-year old". Oh, well.

BOOM headshot65:

The Dust Bowl was caused by a lack of trees and grass to keep dust down. Plus, we now have improved irrigation which will allow use to water down the dirt to keep it from blowing away. Dont try and say you know more about farming and the farm ecosystem. I live on a farm, and all of the people who live near me are farmers. Just dont try it.

Then I'm SURE the ongoing Texas drought is absolutely nothing to worry about, right? And hey, a few more 110-degree days won't hurt anyone but the Disposable portion of society... :-P

BOOM headshot65:
Well, the fact stands, THEY COULD HAVE REQUESTED A DISCHARGE!! If they didnt like the leadership.

"Requested" and "Got" are two very different things. Do you actually know a thing about how the military works?

BOOM headshot65:

(BLUH BLUH HUGE MAP)
That is a map of how people voted in 2008. Notice, most of the map is Red (Republican) while the places with the most votes/people are Blue (Democrat).

[/quote]

Good thing the US doesn't use the "one acre, one vote" system, then. I wonder what it looks like if you adjust that to scale by population density?

image

Thanks, Scientific American.

Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

Seekster:
Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

I'll put up the results when they reach 95%.

So far, WP has posted a 13% lead by Gingrich. This places him effectively in second place after only one contest that awarded him delegates. Santorum, despite what he said earlier today, will probably drop out after a third poor showing in Florida, which means the majority of conservatives will probably line up behind Gingrich.

On an slightly different note: Seekster, do you think Perry will be able to run for Texas governor again after the massive beating he got in this race?

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

I'll put up the results when they reach 95%.

So far, WP has posted a 13% lead by Gingrich. This places him effectively in second place after only one contest that awarded him delegates. Santorum, despite what he said earlier today, will probably drop out after a third poor showing in Florida, which means the majority of conservatives will probably line up behind Gingrich.

On an slightly different note: Seekster, do you think Perry will be able to run for Texas governor again after the massive beating he got in this race?

Yes this has effectively turned into a Gingrich vs Romney race. Florida will go a long way towards giving one or the other a boost.

Well on Perry at first I thought he might run again, after all this is Rick Perry we are talking about here. However the more I thought about it the more I had my doubts, now there are local political scientists including some at the University I graduated from saying that most likley Perry will finish out his term and then go do something in private life, maybe become a consultant or something. One thing that has been made abundantly clear though is that Newt and Perry are the same type, politicians to the core. Santorum you can tell that he at least believes every word he says about family and values and what not. Perry I think believes some of it and I won't question his faith, but I think the reason Santorum was able to hang in there and he isnt is because Santorum is genuine and people can tell when you are under this level of scrutiny who is genuine and who is not, some of those people actually care (the joke being that most politicians arent genuine but so long as they support what we want them to its really not that important).

Speaking of Gingrich, I think the last two debates, especially the one where he basically beat John King about the head with the open marriage question were HUGE for Gingrich. Romney had South Carolina before then. Romney's debate performances were not bad but Gingrich's were just so much better and while I have few doubts Gingrich would lose a general election to Obama, a lot of people love the idea of seeing him on a debate stage with Obama. Personally I would like to see that two, but when neither he nor Obama are running for President. I think Gingrich is your typical political sleazeball (kind of like Clinton was except Clinton was more likable at a personal level) but every time I convince myself that I don't like Gingrich he says something amazing. Its that wonderfully and perilously unpredictable brain of his that I love, everything else about him I just don't like. Even so I would take him over Obama...though it would be painful voting for Gingrich and I have very little faith that Gingrich could best Obama in a general election regardless of how he would do on a debate stage.

I think Gingrich has this won. I said it a while ago that the clear advantage Gingrich had over everyone else was that he is a professional politician. He is an expert at deflecting attacks, nullifying the negatives and expanding on the positives. In the last couple of weeks he has done this time and time again.

Romney just does not have it in him to deflect things. It is always the same arguments against Romney, he is a flip flopper and he is a rich prick. As the Republican party know better than anyone, if you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again eventually people will accept it. In the case of Romney the same arguments have been around for so long they are instilled in the heads of voters. Gingrich on the other hand deflects attacks and moves on. The arguments against him are all over the shop which means they do not get ingrained into the voters mind.

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

Seekster:
Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

I'll put up the results when they reach 95%.

So far, WP has posted a 13% lead by Gingrich. This places him effectively in second place after only one contest that awarded him delegates. Santorum, despite what he said earlier today, will probably drop out after a third poor showing in Florida, which means the majority of conservatives will probably line up behind Gingrich.

On an slightly different note: Seekster, do you think Perry will be able to run for Texas governor again after the massive beating he got in this race?

Yes this has effectively turned into a Gingrich vs Romney race. Florida will go a long way towards giving one or the other a boost.

Well on Perry at first I thought he might run again, after all this is Rick Perry we are talking about here. However the more I thought about it the more I had my doubts, now there are local political scientists including some at the University I graduated from saying that most likley Perry will finish out his term and then go do something in private life, maybe become a consultant or something. One thing that has been made abundantly clear though is that Newt and Perry are the same type, politicians to the core. Santorum you can tell that he at least believes every word he says about family and values and what not. Perry I think believes some of it and I won't question his faith, but I think the reason Santorum was able to hang in there and he isnt is because Santorum is genuine and people can tell when you are under this level of scrutiny who is genuine and who is not, some of those people actually care (the joke being that most politicians arent genuine but so long as they support what we want them to its really not that important).

Speaking of Gingrich, I think the last two debates, especially the one where he basically beat John King about the head with the open marriage question were HUGE for Gingrich. Romney had South Carolina before then. Romney's debate performances were not bad but Gingrich's were just so much better and while I have few doubts Gingrich would lose a general election to Obama, a lot of people love the idea of seeing him on a debate stage with Obama. Personally I would like to see that two, but when neither he nor Obama are running for President. I think Gingrich is your typical political sleazeball (kind of like Clinton was except Clinton was more likable at a personal level) but every time I convince myself that I don't like Gingrich he says something amazing. Its that wonderfully and perilously unpredictable brain of his that I love, everything else about him I just don't like. Even so I would take him over Obama...though it would be painful voting for Gingrich and I have very little faith that Gingrich could best Obama in a general election regardless of how he would do on a debate stage.

The fact you would even consider voting for Gingrich says that you are part of the Republican faithful. Lets ignore all the moral policies of the Republicans such as no funding for facilities that allow abortion and other religious bullshit and focus on just one aspect, taxes.

A 15% Flat Tax on income. This would more than halve the current tax rate for high earners.

0% Capital Gains tax. This would mean the rich who as we know make most of their money through Capital Gains would pay next to no tax at all.

Corporate Tax from 35% to 12.5%.

The Gingrich plan would cut revenue by 35%. Lets take 2012 for instance, with an estimated revenue of $2.6 Trillion, under Gingrich it would be $1.7 Trillion. To balance the budget, which is something he also claims he will do, you would need to cut $2 Trillion in spending. That is equal to cutting everything except mandatory spending and still needing to cut another $650 Billion.

How can you possibly consider voting for someone that even suggests such a fucked up plan. I know Republicans are suppose to be all about small government but I think forcing a small government by going bankrupt is a bit of a leap.

pyrate:
I think Gingrich has this won. I said it a while ago that the clear advantage Gingrich had over everyone else was that he is a professional politician. He is an expert at deflecting attacks, nullifying the negatives and expanding on the positives. In the last couple of weeks he has done this time and time again.

Romney just does not have it in him to deflect things. It is always the same arguments against Romney, he is a flip flopper and he is a rich prick. As the Republican party know better than anyone, if you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again eventually people will accept it. In the case of Romney the same arguments have been around for so long they are instilled in the heads of voters. Gingrich on the other hand deflects attacks and moves on. The arguments against him are all over the shop which means they do not get ingrained into the voters mind.

Err I think you have the wrong idea there. Everyone knows Romney is rich and that he has changed his mind on issues in the past, and yet he is still getting a lot more support now than he was getting four years ago. I actually think the reverse of what you said is true. There are all sorts of things on Gingrich they havnt even touched yet, with Romney, what is left? He is rich, he isnt a pure Conservative, and he is *gasp* a Mormon. You can repeat these all you want but if people already know this and are still voting for the guy, well what do you do then?

Gingrich won South Carolina for two key reasons:

1. Because of his stellar debate performances in the last two debates, particualrly the most recent one a couple of days ago.

2. Because when Gingrich was getting criticized by everyone for channeling Obama and basically attacking capitalism, Romney did not drive the point home and nail Gingrich when he had the chance (though knowing Gingrich, Romney will get more chances).

Romney is the all around better man and better candidate but Gingrich is a lot more fun to watch and a lot of the things he says resonate with Conservatives more. Hell I don't even like the man and I've caught myself nodding at some of the things he says. Gingrich will be Romney's toughest opponent, even including Obama, but in the end I think Romney will beat Gingrich.

Edit: I also want to point out that Gingrich is in big trouble if he doesnt win Florida, just look at the primaries they have in February:

Feb 4 - Nevada

Feb 7 - Colorado, Minnesota, Missouri

Feb 11 - Maine

Feb 28 - Arizona, Michigan

On a side note, did anyone else see Santorum start to channel Howard Dean there for a bit...fortunately he stopped well before the "YAAAGH!"

pyrate:

Seekster:

The Gentleman:

I'll put up the results when they reach 95%.

So far, WP has posted a 13% lead by Gingrich. This places him effectively in second place after only one contest that awarded him delegates. Santorum, despite what he said earlier today, will probably drop out after a third poor showing in Florida, which means the majority of conservatives will probably line up behind Gingrich.

On an slightly different note: Seekster, do you think Perry will be able to run for Texas governor again after the massive beating he got in this race?

Yes this has effectively turned into a Gingrich vs Romney race. Florida will go a long way towards giving one or the other a boost.

Well on Perry at first I thought he might run again, after all this is Rick Perry we are talking about here. However the more I thought about it the more I had my doubts, now there are local political scientists including some at the University I graduated from saying that most likley Perry will finish out his term and then go do something in private life, maybe become a consultant or something. One thing that has been made abundantly clear though is that Newt and Perry are the same type, politicians to the core. Santorum you can tell that he at least believes every word he says about family and values and what not. Perry I think believes some of it and I won't question his faith, but I think the reason Santorum was able to hang in there and he isnt is because Santorum is genuine and people can tell when you are under this level of scrutiny who is genuine and who is not, some of those people actually care (the joke being that most politicians arent genuine but so long as they support what we want them to its really not that important).

Speaking of Gingrich, I think the last two debates, especially the one where he basically beat John King about the head with the open marriage question were HUGE for Gingrich. Romney had South Carolina before then. Romney's debate performances were not bad but Gingrich's were just so much better and while I have few doubts Gingrich would lose a general election to Obama, a lot of people love the idea of seeing him on a debate stage with Obama. Personally I would like to see that two, but when neither he nor Obama are running for President. I think Gingrich is your typical political sleazeball (kind of like Clinton was except Clinton was more likable at a personal level) but every time I convince myself that I don't like Gingrich he says something amazing. Its that wonderfully and perilously unpredictable brain of his that I love, everything else about him I just don't like. Even so I would take him over Obama...though it would be painful voting for Gingrich and I have very little faith that Gingrich could best Obama in a general election regardless of how he would do on a debate stage.

The fact you would even consider voting for Gingrich says that you are part of the Republican faithful. Lets ignore all the moral policies of the Republicans such as no funding for facilities that allow abortion and other religious bullshit and focus on just one aspect, taxes.

A 15% Flat Tax on income. This would more than halve the current tax rate for high earners.

0% Capital Gains tax. This would mean the rich who as we know make most of their money through Capital Gains would pay next to no tax at all.

Corporate Tax from 35% to 12.5%.

The Gingrich plan would cut revenue by 35%. Lets take 2012 for instance, with an estimated revenue of $2.6 Trillion, under Gingrich it would be $1.7 Trillion. To balance the budget, which is something he also claims he will do, you would need to cut $2 Trillion in spending. That is equal to cutting everything except mandatory spending and still needing to cut another $650 Billion.

How can you possibly consider voting for someone that even suggests such a fucked up plan. I know Republicans are suppose to be all about small government but I think forcing a small government by going bankrupt is a bit of a leap.

*sigh* Oh Pyrate, it never ceases to amuse me how people on this forum think they can make me something I am not just by saying it repeatedly. What was it you said in your last post?

pyrate:
As the Republican party know better than anyone, if you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again eventually people will accept it.

Ha, cute but wrong.

Tax policy isnt something that really interests me much. All I can tell you is the current tax system is badly in need of reform. I don't know about Gingrich's tax plan (or if he could even implement it or if this is just another one of those campaign promises that can't be kept because the President does not wield absolute power and cant just change shit without Congress). Suffice it to say that IF I am put into a situation where I am forced to vote for Gingrich, it wont be because of his tax plan.

As for shrinking government by starving it of revenue, how is that any worse than growing government by glutting it on revenue for things it doesnt need. Government should eat to live not live to eat.

OP Has been updated with South Carolina Primary totals.

Seekster:
Just an update, Newt Gingrich has won the South Carolina primary very handily. Romney came in second but a fair bit behind him. Santorum got third a fair bit behind Romney and Paul finished fourth.

Well now each candidate except Paul has won a primary which makes Florida all the more important.

I called that Seekster. Romney wasn't going to win South Carolina in a million years. For the people of that state, religion first, everything else a distant second.

Gingrich won't win the overall nomination, not if the GOP has any want for the presidency.

And you are right, Florida's winner will probably be the GOP nod.

pyrate:
I think Gingrich has this won. I said it a while ago that the clear advantage Gingrich had over everyone else was that he is a professional politician. He is an expert at deflecting attacks, nullifying the negatives and expanding on the positives. In the last couple of weeks he has done this time and time again.

Romney just does not have it in him to deflect things. It is always the same arguments against Romney, he is a flip flopper and he is a rich prick. As the Republican party know better than anyone, if you keep on repeating the same thing over and over again eventually people will accept it. In the case of Romney the same arguments have been around for so long they are instilled in the heads of voters. Gingrich on the other hand deflects attacks and moves on. The arguments against him are all over the shop which means they do not get ingrained into the voters mind.

The GOP won't give it to him. Most capable of handling pressure? Yes. Least baggage. Uh... no. The Democrats could show images of nothing but him next to his congressional record, with no words at all, and win. Something about those 70+ ethics violations do not help his chances, let alone the infidelity thing.

Romney will get it by virtue of "not being the other guys".

Seekster:
Tax policy isnt something that really interests me much. All I can tell you is the current tax system is badly in need of reform. I don't know about Gingrich's tax plan (or if he could even implement it or if this is just another one of those campaign promises that can't be kept because the President does not wield absolute power and cant just change shit without Congress). Suffice it to say that IF I am put into a situation where I am forced to vote for Gingrich, it wont be because of his tax plan.

The problem is, the tax plan matters. It should especially matter for the republicans, who have been bitching and moaning and screaming about government debt and class warfare for the last three years, but it also matters for the everyday man, especially if the strategy they're using is "starve the beast" - that could have a heavy impact on the poor of this country. 15% flat tax raises taxes on those who are in lower income brackets, and cutting off programs like food stamps and welfare for them is even more damaging.

As for shrinking government by starving it of revenue, how is that any worse than growing government by glutting it on revenue for things it doesnt need. Government should eat to live not live to eat.

Uh... How, exactly, are we glutting it on revenue for things we don't need? Who is proposing "growing the government for the sake of growing government"? Nobody!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 . . . 22 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked