Santorum is a preening prick, so he's not going anywhere. Paul is more unelectable than I am. So, we're left with Newt, who will continue to run circles around anyone else on stage with him, but who probably figures to to capture about 25% of the national female vote and might actually be nuttier than Paul, and Romney, who inspires nobody, and is beginning to look more like Gordon Gekko by the hour. I can only imagine there are some fascinating discussions taking place in the in the upper-echelons of the GOP this afternoon. Where all this will wind up, I have no idea. Anyone care to offer their opinion on all of this?
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
Santorum is a preening prick, so he's not going anywhere. Paul is more unelectable than I am. So, we're left with Newt, who will continue to run circles around anyone else on stage with him, but who probably figures to to capture about 25% of the national female vote and might actually be nuttier than Paul, and Romney, who inspires nobody, and is beginning to look more like Gordon Gekko by the hour. I can only imagine there are some fascinating discussions taking place in the in the upper-echelons of the GOP this afternoon. Where all this will wind up, I have no idea. Anyone care to offer their opinion on all of this?
the fact that it's almost a month into 2012 and we're still talking about a guy like santorum is a bad sign. the fact that almost everyone agrees the system has been a corrupted mess for a while but someone like paul who wants to make major changes is called extreme and ignored and a company guy like romney is on top is a bad sign.
i would have thought the republicans hit rock bottom after 2008 but apparently there is still a way to go, despite their best efforts to get there as quickly and efficiently as possible.
the simple answer i guess, is kapono's, and one can only take solace in the fact that obama can't run again in 2012 and maybe in four years the republicans will get some kind of clue.
0
the fact that it's almost a month into 2012 and we're still talking about a guy like santorum is a bad sign. the fact that almost everyone agrees the system has been a corrupted mess for a while but someone like paul who wants to make major changes is called extreme and ignored and a company guy like romney is on top is a bad sign.
i would have thought the republicans hit rock bottom after 2008 but apparently there is still a way to go, despite their best efforts to get there as quickly and efficiently as possible.
the simple answer i guess, is kapono's, and one can only take solace in the fact that obama can't run again in 2012 and maybe in four years the republicans will get some kind of clue.
It will end up with a second Obama term, been saying that for a long time
its either ron paul or obama. the GOP needs to realize this soon enough
his supporters...14% nationally arent voting for Willard and most find Newt disgustung https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
It will end up with a second Obama term, been saying that for a long time
its either ron paul or obama. the GOP needs to realize this soon enough
his supporters...14% nationally arent voting for Willard and most find Newt disgustung https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
0
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
At least rooster and splande are funny at times; you, canov and kroger are just boring nitwits..
...Someone who seriously claims, that the Washington Post and the New York Times are not liberal outlets...has no standing labeling anyone else as nitwits.........
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
At least rooster and splande are funny at times; you, canov and kroger are just boring nitwits..
...Someone who seriously claims, that the Washington Post and the New York Times are not liberal outlets...has no standing labeling anyone else as nitwits.........
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
he will get the anti-war dems, independents, fiscal conservatives, as well as the anyone but obama crowd. that should be enough
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
he will get the anti-war dems, independents, fiscal conservatives, as well as the anyone but obama crowd. that should be enough
i would have thought the republicans hit rock bottom after 2008 but apparently there is still a way to go, despite their best efforts to get there as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
No??
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i would have thought the republicans hit rock bottom after 2008 but apparently there is still a way to go, despite their best efforts to get there as quickly and efficiently as possible.
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
Really? The disaffected Dems think obama isn't liberal enough. You see them voting for RP and simultaneously in good faith consider him a "conservative". Would his running mate be Dennis K?
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
I think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama. He's the only one who could get a lot of support of people who are fed up with the status quo regardless of what party is in office. Lots of disaffected conservatives and disaffected liberals who could get behind "not the status quo" in RP IMO
Really? The disaffected Dems think obama isn't liberal enough. You see them voting for RP and simultaneously in good faith consider him a "conservative". Would his running mate be Dennis K?
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
No??
no, because the tea party nuts cost the republicans a few elections they should have won then and obama is looking like the favorite again so i don't see the democrats as being in as much turmoil as the republicans.
in this economy with this debt, it's tailor made for true fiscal conservatives. yet the republicans are in more disarray than ever. that can't be a good sign.
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
No??
no, because the tea party nuts cost the republicans a few elections they should have won then and obama is looking like the favorite again so i don't see the democrats as being in as much turmoil as the republicans.
in this economy with this debt, it's tailor made for true fiscal conservatives. yet the republicans are in more disarray than ever. that can't be a good sign.
And Club Dirt, I disagree, tax cuts for the rich so they could trickle down is a hard sell right now. The middle class has been squeezed out of prosperity.
Even the conservative candidates seemed to stay away from that message. We'll elect you when the good times are rolling again.
0
And Club Dirt, I disagree, tax cuts for the rich so they could trickle down is a hard sell right now. The middle class has been squeezed out of prosperity.
Even the conservative candidates seemed to stay away from that message. We'll elect you when the good times are rolling again.
Alot of folks would like to think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama, but in reality he wouldn't. Though he speaks more truth to root causes of many probs & has the most ardent and enthusiastic support of any of the GOP'rs, there aren't near enough of 'em. He would come alot closer to beating Obama than getting the GOP nomination imo, but he has what is perceived by many to be too many conflicting & rigid/extreme stances to get enough mass support. It's good to see him being taken more seriously by more people, but media-wise even that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't got the results he has. Major shifts in understanding & thought on a large scale take alot of time especially when it comes to his foreign policy views in what most consider a still dangerous world with Iran, terrorism, etc. And imo he would only get the most extreme of anti-war dems - most will consider Obama anti-war enough. No, it's gonna be either Romney or Newt, prob the flip-floppin, corporate person Mitt who turns off the tp's & ows folks along with alot of the mainstream GOP'rs. Obama by a field goal -
0
Alot of folks would like to think RP would have the best chance to beat Obama, but in reality he wouldn't. Though he speaks more truth to root causes of many probs & has the most ardent and enthusiastic support of any of the GOP'rs, there aren't near enough of 'em. He would come alot closer to beating Obama than getting the GOP nomination imo, but he has what is perceived by many to be too many conflicting & rigid/extreme stances to get enough mass support. It's good to see him being taken more seriously by more people, but media-wise even that wouldn't have happened if he hadn't got the results he has. Major shifts in understanding & thought on a large scale take alot of time especially when it comes to his foreign policy views in what most consider a still dangerous world with Iran, terrorism, etc. And imo he would only get the most extreme of anti-war dems - most will consider Obama anti-war enough. No, it's gonna be either Romney or Newt, prob the flip-floppin, corporate person Mitt who turns off the tp's & ows folks along with alot of the mainstream GOP'rs. Obama by a field goal -
And Club Dirt, I disagree, tax cuts for the rich so they could trickle down is a hard sell right now. The middle class has been squeezed out of prosperity.
Even the conservative candidates seemed to stay away from that message. We'll elect you when the good times are rolling again.
i don't believe tax cuts is a true conservative position if it increases the debt.
0
Quote Originally Posted by promark12:
And Club Dirt, I disagree, tax cuts for the rich so they could trickle down is a hard sell right now. The middle class has been squeezed out of prosperity.
Even the conservative candidates seemed to stay away from that message. We'll elect you when the good times are rolling again.
i don't believe tax cuts is a true conservative position if it increases the debt.
i don't believe tax cuts is a true conservative position if it increases the debt.
Bingo! Eisenhower & even Nixon understood this. Since Reagan & all his trickle down nonsense, our debt has skyrocketed in relation to gdp except during the Clinton yrs & yes, after a tax raise in '93. To talk about reducing debt & lowering top tier taxes in a globa but shittyl economy with no manufacturing job base anymore in the same breath is absurd. Yet these repub candidates talk like they're the new "Ronny" & in a time warp somehow & if we just get rid of regulations & lower taxes, our economy will boom again. At least Paul recognizes how much our defense & military spending has hurt. We need both - drastic cuts in spending & a tax raise on the wealthiest.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
i don't believe tax cuts is a true conservative position if it increases the debt.
Bingo! Eisenhower & even Nixon understood this. Since Reagan & all his trickle down nonsense, our debt has skyrocketed in relation to gdp except during the Clinton yrs & yes, after a tax raise in '93. To talk about reducing debt & lowering top tier taxes in a globa but shittyl economy with no manufacturing job base anymore in the same breath is absurd. Yet these repub candidates talk like they're the new "Ronny" & in a time warp somehow & if we just get rid of regulations & lower taxes, our economy will boom again. At least Paul recognizes how much our defense & military spending has hurt. We need both - drastic cuts in spending & a tax raise on the wealthiest.
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
No??
But it seems like all the news is about the GOP candidate survivor game where each candidate so how outs him/herself from contention after successfully convincing the voters that they are qualified and ready to be president...
0
Quote Originally Posted by esplanade:
Did you think the Dems hit rock bottom in the biggest blowout in US political history just 15 or so months ago??
No??
But it seems like all the news is about the GOP candidate survivor game where each candidate so how outs him/herself from contention after successfully convincing the voters that they are qualified and ready to be president...
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
