These recent poll numbers showing Newt with a commanding lead in Iowa, south carolina, and florida, and 2nd in new hampshire, sends chills down my spine. With Cain dropping out, it looks like a lot of his supporters are flocking to Newt. With only 1 month to go before the iowa caucus, Romney has to act decisively in order to halt Newt's momentum. The nightmare scenario would be if newt wins iowa, finishes 2nd in new hampshire and then wins south carolina. No GOP candidate has won the nomination without winning south carolina, and I don't see how Romney can recover from losing 2 key early states.
Make no mistake about it. A Newt nomination will lead to the biggest democratic landslide since LBJ crushed Goldwater in 1964. Newt's utter lack of discipline, lousy record as speaker, personal troubles, inconsistent conservatism, and extensive lobbying, will all be used by the Obama campaign ruthlessly. Add to that his general unlikeability, and we are seeing the recipe for an Obama landslide.
Sigh. Will the GOP primary voters get their act together and start thinking rationally? One can only hope.
I was just going to post something just like this. Yes, I do think that the GOP is headed towards destruction. They cannot seem to get it through their heads that more of the same will not win in 2012. Newt is a slimeball, a political opportunist that will do anything for a buck and TV publicity. As far voters thinking rationally, that won't happen until they realize things outside out Fox News are not "liberal conspiracies."
I'm voting for Ron Paul all the way, even if it means writing in. I voted McCain in 2008 (first election) and still feel lame for it. After Christmas, I'm working on Ron Paul's campaign for the Iowa Caucus,
@ eddie, what a badass video!
That Ron Paul ad made my day. Would like Chuck Norris worked in there somehow. Maybe Clint Eastwood too (I think he's libertarian).
I'll agree that Romney is not looking that great against Obama. Political analysts say otherwise, but they are so similar on the issues it is ridiculous. Then it comes down to "who does America like more?" Even against an African American, suspected by middle America to be a muslim, Romney does not do well...he comes off as weird. He is smart as hell, but that intelligence is manifesting in solid political strategy, not a real plan to fixing the country.
Newt is unelectable. He is the ultimate insider, and an "old white man" against Obama. He also has more skeletons in his closet than you could find at Arlington.
As for the Obama in office with 4 more years of gridlock scenario: I am not sure we can take it. The US needs to reverse course yesterday. To maintain the horrible status quo is too dangerous.
This is turning into 2008 all over again: a presidential election with no good options.
Some people realize they can do better and start making incremental changes over time: maybe a friend explains this to them, maybe they're smart and figure it out, or maybe their family just pesters them into being a better person.
Others seem to need to hit rock bottom and then change everything in their life: figuratively speaking, the GOP is loosing their job because of a crack addiction...the intervention should be right around the corner.
Potentially ideal scenario in the vicinity of being realistic: A) Newt gets the nomination, and we get amazing debates, but Obama ultimately wins the election B) Republicans win the Senate, controlling Congress C) Paul Ryan, or someone similar, runs for Prez next cycle
I don't really understand the idea that Newt is a great debater. All he's done in the debates is bitch and moan about "gotcha" questions and other such non-sense.
Let's be serious here. Newt is a fraud. He has this image of himself as some sort of conservative Joan of Arc who has been at the center of every major accomplishment of the last 30 years, but has been misunderstood and mis-characterized by the liberal media, or some such non-sense.
Fuck Newt in the ass up front of his kids.
But, in all likelihood, he'll peter out like the Texas Cheerleader and the Pizza Man.
Completely agree. +100000000
Beyond being a fraud, he is a massive neocon. Do you know he wants us to invade North Korea? In the last debate, he was actively advocating that the USA overthrow Iran's regime... hmmm, sounds like something that we did in 1953.
How he can say Frank and Dodd should go to jail for doing the same thing he did is particularly comical. The flavor of the month indeed.
Oh man, that's an all-time great internet meme.
Just another high-flier who will soon crash - easy money on intrade :)
yeah, this is a complete disaster.
I don't see any realistic scenario where we don't have 4 more years of Obama.
I would love Ron Paul to be our next president, but I am convinced there's no chance of that so I want Mitt because I think he's the only candidate with a remote chance of beating Obama.
Let me save you the time and heartache: Romney has no shot against Obama.
Why not do the right thing and vote for Ron Paul?
A vote for Mitt is a vote for Obama. All hail the Demopublicans.
Ron Paul 2012
Independently of his record, Newt was dead to me when, in one of the earlier debates, he responded to the question "How will the gov't raise revenue without increasing taxes?" by saying:
"You don't have to raise taxes to increase revenue, you can do so by cutting spending instead."
Obviously, I know what he was trying to say, and had he said it correctly, I would have agreed. However, such a fundamental misunderstanding of perhaps the most basic of all economic concepts, even if semantic, just drives me fucking crazy!
Either way, I think Newt will be Romney's VP nod or vice-versa, which is bull shit because Ron Paul won't even be considered. Also, would have REALLY loved to see Huntsman make a bigger impact, so that he could be more viable in 2016, but I'm not sure he's done enough, which is too bad.
If next fall comes around and I think Romney has even a remote shot, he'll get my vote, otherwise I'm writing Ron Paul in.
Romney has not shot against Obama? I think you meant Ron Paul.
So Ron Paul is going to get enough votes to beat Obama? Ron Pauls entire platform basically pisses off every interested person in politics. No way Paul gets more than a fraction of the vote. Maybe he would get decent Tea Party support and the Libertarians, but Obama will destroy him.
Ron Paul is for reducing, gutting and shrinking the government. Awesome, I love it. But Dem's will completely be against him. Conservative Republicans will hate him more than Romney. How is he going to get the votes in the electoral college to beat Obama?
Listen, I love Paul. It is great to see a Libertarian candidate with as much press and attention as he has. But he has no shot at winning enough votes to be President.
Baffles my mind how anyone can think Paul is a legit candidate to beat Obama.
Newt is a flash in the pan. He will not get the nomination.
Romney vs. Obama
It'd be really helpful if you'd delineate between true conservatives and bullshit chickenhawk neo-cons. Ron Paul is the only real conservative in the field. That's why he doesn't appeal to the "America - fuck yeah!" crowd.
I fail to see the difference between the two. Romney is just as liberal and hawkish.
Obama will be a tough opponent, but he isn't going to just waltz through the re-election. He spent so much political capital and pissed so many people off with his failed promises.
Even IF Obama wins again, Republicans will most likely take the Senate. Congress has the power and a Republican controlled Congress will cripple Obama for 4 more years.
I am more focused on the Congressional elections than the Presidential. Congress has the power anyway.
All that means is four more years of Obama crying about what big meanies republicans are for not doing what he wants.
Republicans winning congress will be bad for 2016 because Demo pres and republicans congress will cause Obama to bitch and moan. Then it will make the republicans look bad and then we get another SUPER liberal president.
You heard it here first.
Also if any good happens Obama will take credit for it and then....you know how that goes
I can handle 4 more years of the anointed one crying as long as Republicans prevent him from rolling out any more crappy legislation.
All he talks about is how the rich don't pay their fair share, without ever mentioning what constitutes a fair share. He is such a negative President.
Carter 2.0 completely.
I'll be writing in RP. Don't care who gets the GOP nod.
A vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. Democrats will fall behind their man and Paul will fuck Republicans.
You can thank Nader for fucking the Dem's over and ushering in 8 years of Bush. This is all the 3rd party candidates do.
I don't think so. Dem's got in trouble for a vote exchange with Nader. States that were soundly Dem would vote for Nader and Nader votes would exchange those votes for Gore votes in swing states.
Regardless of semantics. Paul will lose against Obama. I would rather have Mitt and a Republicans controlled Congress then Obama.
Sorry for being a realist.
THIS
I disagree (but what's new?). Romney is too much of a centrist for people to take a chance on him against Obama. The devil you know and all that. For the GOP to have any shot, they need to nominate an extremist in stark contrast to Obama. Preferably one with a triple-digit IQ (sorry Palin, Bachman, Perry, and the rest of the fuckwits).
Ant, I agree wiht 90% of what you say, but I disagree with the above. I really don't care who wins the presidency, I am voting for someone who I believe has views that align with mine. IMO a vote for Romney is no different than a vote for Obama. In short, I don't vote for someone who I think is gonna win.
That is cool and all, but Obama will just resist the Republicans in Congress. It will be 4 years of stalemate.
I wish Paul was a tad more centrist so he could get enough votes to get Federal funding. I would be happy with a decent 3rd party (no more then 3), but I just think most people are afraid of a real Libertarian.
Too many people get fat off the government largess.
Being a centrist is bad now? Obama not only carried the left, but the center in the 2008 election. I feel as if he will lose the center this time.
Republicans (most) will vote for anyone other then Obama. Mitt is a governor, a businessman, a good family man. He has been around enough for Republicans to see him and vet him. The guy can appeal to Northern professionals and moderates.
Obama was a rebound lay. People were depressed with Bush, drunk and miserable. Obama looked decent and rubbed the countries leg. We hit it and then woke up with herpes.
Mitt is the cream that will make it all better.
He's all of those things. You know what else he is? A Mormon. And America loves its bigotry. The magic underwear isn't gonna play with a wide swath of voters.
Or maybe that's about the time I started paying attention to politics and realized that people are fucking crazy, and always have been.
I think the "Obama is a Muslim" thing is pretty well ingrained in conservative Christian's right now. A Mormon with a wife and kids will negate any Mormon hate.
I think a lot of these these posts give too much credit to our fellow countrymen. Honestly, I don't think we as a country deserve a visionary like Ron Paul. I was on the Ron Paul bandwagon in 2008 and will be again for this election cycle.
Newt will be a disaster for the GOP. He has too many skeletons in his closet, and panders to the ultra left. He was the subject of a year long ethics committee and was found guilty of one of the charges against him. Newt had to pay $300,000 as retribution.
Not to mention while publicly chastising Fannie and Freddie he took in close to $2M in consulting fees from said organizations. If common sense is any guide - I am willing to bet that this is just scratching the surface. Newt Gingrich is hypocrite of the highest order.
As for the Mormon argument, I think it is moot. Why? Think about the juxtaposition of Romney vs. Obama. Most of the knuckle-dragging, creationism believing hicks in the Bible Belt are convinced the Barry O is a closet Muslim/Kenyan/Indonesian by birth.
Every election I feel the exact same fucking way...who is the least shitty candidate? In this case I believe it to be Mitt Romney. Ron Paul has my vote in the primary and Romney in the secondary. If Newt is in the secondary, I'll vote for the generic Libertarian candidate and lube up for 4 more years.
I agree with ANT almost entirely on this one. Ron Paul has no shot at beating Obama. He may be the most ideologically consistent candidate in this race, but just like Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972, he will go down in flames. If Paul were to win the nomination, we can all but guarantee a 3rd party run from a social conservative (huckabee perhaps?). And democrats and moderates who are scared to death of Paul privatizing social security, medicare, and medicaid, will show up in droves to vote for Obama.
In addition, this whole meme about how a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama is total bullshit. Just because Romney is not a "pure" conservative does not make him Obama-lite. Unlike our current president, Romney actually worked in the private sector and knows how the economy works. He is smart, analytical, and steady. We are in a lot of trouble right now; the last thing we need is another ideological firebrand who is oblivious to facts.
A bit of a tangential point, but how does a supposed advocate of free market capitalism (ron paul) also believe in a return to the gold standard? The bretton woods period from 1945 to 1971 was one of intense government regulation of virtually every industry and constant government actions to control the world's dollar supply.
I still don't get why people are settling on Romney and not going all-in on Huntsman. It just makes no sense at all.
Because, we're not allowed to have a pro-Science candidate that views the international community with endearment. (Sarcasm of course. Huntsman would be ideal for me, let's hope he comes back in 2016.)
I don't think Political discussions are ideal front-page content, as a lot of our political threads tend to stray towards neocon pretty quickly, which is fine for the people who know how awesome this community is, but it could potentially turn new-users away.
I imagine Patrick's priorities (in approx order) are for first time viewers (the front page stuff) to see us as 1.) a career site, 2.) a market think-tank, 3.) a macro-econ think-tank, and 4.) a financial gossip/lifestyle forum.
Mods: Front page?
I would love to have Huntsman over any of the people running right now except Ron Paul and maybe Romney, but the man has like 1% of the vote right now and zero name recognition. Just absolutely no way he gets close to winning anything without him doing SOMETHING drastic soon.
I will vote for Paul in the primary and hope to God Newt is not the nominee. I absolutely despise that scumbag. I would vote for Obama over Newt and that's only because I would want to see us not fuck up our chances for 2016 with the likelihood that the 2016 pool is 10,000x's better then the 2012 pool.
@Nobama88:
I just don't see why you'd consider Romney over Huntsman from a principles point of view. Romney is a flip-flopper who just suddenly transformed into a far right conservative, whereas Huntsman has always been a conservative and has, arguably, a better resume to be President.
Plus, he's hot. No homo.
I can't find the write up, but it was a detailed analysis on conservative voting tendencies when it comes to the Republican Presidential nomination. Huntsman is not the established candidate. Romney has qued up and waited his turn.
Huntsman will be viable if Romney can get elected. Romney is more well known, been on the Republican Presidential scene longer and is a better probability than Huntsman.
ANT:
I just find that to be media-created bullshit. Romney is the "presumptive front runner" because the media has been calling him that for the last 1 - 2 years. At no point does the media at large provide legitimate issue-based coverage. It's all horse race crap that leads to self-fulfilling prophecies vis-a-vis Romney and Newt.
If the media would report on the issues alone, I don't think we'd need to deal with this bullshit "he needs to wait his turn" garbage.
Romney is the front runner because he got passed over for McCain in 2008. McCain waited his turn while he got passed over for Bush in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000#…
Huntsman will be the nomination in 2016 if Romney doesn't win.
Yes, the media reinforces it, but this is because Republicans send the message out. Romney is the next in line and he is being guarded.
It is a phalanx protecting the man in the middle. Look at how much money, time and press is being focused on shitting on Republican candidates, while the candidates continually shit on Obama. The Republicans get their message out without getting dirt on Romney.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance
Look at the #1 and #2.
This is all a careful battle being fought.
Romney is not the perfect conservative, but this country is not perfectly conservative. As I continually say, we are center right.
Mitt is a good family man (unlike Newt) He is a business man, but a veteran politician (unlike Cain).
Obama will call him Mr. Wall Street and Romney will show how Obama received more WS contributions than any other President.
Obama will say he doesn't care about the sick, and Romney will show how he brought healthcare to Mass. and how it wont work on a national level. Regardless, it should be a states right issue.
Christians might be uneasy with a Mormon, but the Obama is a Muslim meme is basically taken as truth. Nullify the Mormon bias right there.
I mean how people can dismiss Romney is beyond me. Maybe he will lose, but he is a great candidate.
Congress is where the power is. Romney will sign what Republicans put forth. Obama will not.
I don't know if John McCain waited his turn so much as he lost to Bush in South Carolina thanks to a bunch of skeevy racist direct mailers sent out by Karl Rove on behalf of the Bush campaign.
Sure, maybe true, but he lost and stuck around. The article goes in depth though (I have it at home next to my bed), but McCain wasn't really conservative himself. 8 years and he "proved" himself.
He was pretty close to Obama until that back to Washington mistake. That is when Obama ran away with things.
These primaries are a good chance to showcase future talent. It gets their exposure out, they can try stuff and see what resonates. Usually put out a book to raise awareness and cash. Hopefully get a position if the nominee wins the White House, all things to build their brand and awareness within the party.
The Dems are a littler different IMO. Hence Obama. It was probably a good move since Democrats had such an advantage in 2008. Plus Hillary had a strong negative bias surrounding her for some reason. Obama was pretty clean and they took first mover advantage by him being Black. One only has to look at demographics to realize these ethnic plays will become more prevalent.
I think Romney will get the nomination and he will pick a younger, Hispanic Protestant. Would split the Hispanic vote, satisfy the Christians and help mitigate the white guy vs. black guy effect. Plus there is a lot of racial issues with Hispanics and Blacks.
I think that would be decent strategy.
Ron Paul made money for two decades looking at vaginas all day....
I guess I just hate the general focus on political strategy vs. properly informing the public. We need more of the latter, or else we'll continue to eat piles of shit year in, year out.
The majority of Americans have an 8th grade reading level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Educational_attainment_in_the_United_States
Less than 40% have a bachelors degree.
Trying to educated people in a myriad of issues while they deal with their daily lives is a herculean task.
Just sayin...
The fact of the matter is, most GOP primary voters are deeply envious of Romney. He's too successful, smart, rich, good looking, and articulate. They cannot stomach voting for someone who is so much better than them in every regard. You can just tell that Romney hates catering to these people, and it's clearly not in his disposition.
Hmm, Brady lauding praise on Romney without mentioning the fact that he's an HBS alum!? Haha, you're either maturing or over-correcting, I can't tell which.
He's just being subtle to not arouse flaming.
I know, but lying to them and purposefully misleading them is worse. Both parties do this, but the GOP does it with greater success.
Shit is depressing!
GOP has an advantage because Republicans tend to be one issue votes. You can put together a coalition by supporting single issues. Dems tend to be holistic. Environmentalist will vote against you if you don't support one of the 3 or 5 or whatever issues they want.
I also wouldn't say Republicans are better. They lost hard in 2008 and before that Clinton made them look bad. Tides turn and people are fickle.
Bread and circuses, baby.
I don't see how a Republican majority in Congress and a Democrat in the White House or vice versa is a good thing and this is the problem with some of you right wing dbags that are so fkin blindly loyal to these bullshit parties that you would rather work AGAINST the good of the country than give in to the "opponent". Historically speaking, Reps or Dems held both the White House and Congress and it's clear just by taking a look at the state of Congress that it needs to ALWAYS be that way. So give me Obama, give me Romney, Newt, Donald fkin Trump, etc...all I ask for is to match the color of the white house with the color of Congress.
Fucking racist.
GOP is increasingly becoming irrelevant because they're expending too many resources on the wrong issues... if they don't get a facelift, they will truly become irrelevant when all the boomer geezers start dying out.
1) What is good for this country is highly debatable.
2) Sometimes a contentious government is a good government
^^^LOL, no pun intended.
I like debate among both sides of the aisle but that debate eventually has to lead to somewhere...
I get a boner at the thought of a complete restructure of congress, I go soft once I realize that congress could only change congress....
Clearly this guy should be president....
[quote=loki276]Clearly this guy should be president....
]
Unintentional comedy is the best kind.
Eddie, is there anything you disagree with Paul on? Iran? I'm curious because I love RP, but 1) I wonder what the economy/market for loanable funds would look like with no fractional reserve banking and a fixed money supply. And, 2) I can't stomach his fierce non-interventionism on Iran (though I certainly agree the US should be much less apt to go to war). Ahmadinejad is a mad man. What do you think?
Ron Paul is wrong when he says central banking brought fractional reserve banking. The natural progression of all wealth is for banks to pay interest to its customers for the right to lend money. If someone gave you 100 million dollars to keep safe in perpetuity, but was only going to withdraw 10 million dollars a year, you would be a fool not to lend out the remaining 90 million at interest. Banks have always done this regardless if the money was sound or fiat.
I will not understand the phobia that Iran inspires. Iran has never been offensive militarily with others. It has never lied to the world so it can invade another country. The USA is the country killing hosts of people in the Middle East, not Iran. They would be fools not to pursue a nuclear bomb since it guarantees that they won't be invaded again like they were during both World Wars. At its height, the USSR had 30000 nukes. Pakistan, which is a country run by fundamentalists has nukes and there is no problem.
While I love the principle of sound money, it's not something I think a single president could get done in a 4-year term. The things I think Ron Paul could get done include shutting down bullshit bureaucracies and putting an end to the disastrous Pax Americana foreign policy. As Commander in Chief, he could recall all the troops worldwide in 4 years, stop the idiotic wars the "America - fuck yeah!" crowd started, and save a shit ton of money in the bargain.
Jack Kennedy attempted to create sound money currency (Executive Order 11110) for the US, and look what it got him.
+11110 for mentioning JFK's greatest unsung act of patriotism. people may also want to look into abe lincoln's repudiation of certain terms from banksters in the city of london as well if they are curious about what happens to american presidents who stand up for the american interest.
-
@eokpar:
First, your signature is hysterical and I know exactly where it's from. Too funny.
As for the obsession with Iran, I'm pretty sure we can chalk that up to AIPAC and the far right's borderline-homo obsession with Israel.
Such a fucking joke.
Borderline-homo obsession with Israel? I think it is basic self preservation and FYI both parties kiss Israel's ass. The amount of political power and money that flows from the land of the Israelite's is enough to make anyone support the country.
Also, if you think a nuclear Iran is a good thing, you are insane. Supporting Israel aside, Iran having nukes would be a disaster for everyone. Only thing keeping North Korea in line is China.
Ant, you are spot on and that is why we need to stop all "aid". I love how you and your ilk decry welfare for Americans and yet are the first people in line to say we should be confiscating American's money and giving it to other countries because they are our buddies.
I don't want any countries to have nuclear weapons. I just like to point at the hysteria Iran's nuclear program is producing. Iran is not a war-crazed country like the USA. They have never invaded another country. There problems are internal, not external. Also, Israel could wipe Iran off the face of the planet within an hour. They have nukes and numerous ways to deploy them.
Everyone is a bit shocked that Obama went and basically told it like it is at one point, and I'll sum up exactly what he was implying to Israel: "YOU aren't in charge of anything. WE call the shots, so show some damn respect for the people who ensure that you still exist. You're just about out of friends, if you haven't noticed, and we need a higher degree of cooperation...we've got bigger problems than squabbles over water wells, who gets the last word, or who controls which city block, and we're tired of managing this shit. We're in the middle of a global "
I'm going to cut this short because I'm actually pro-Israel in most instances, but not blindly so. Consider that the world was their oyster after WWII, and they chose to settle in an area that had other people already living on it. I'm not saying what ANY of the Muslim population is doing is right. However, in the spirit of basic common fucking sense...pushing people out of where they've been living is a surefire way to start a war.
I'm not condoning it, I'm just saying I comprehend the motivations.
Basic self-preservation? What?
Also, nice straw man, no one is saying that a nuclear Iran is a "good thing," rather we're saying that the fear is overblown considering that countries like North Korea and fucking Pakistan already have nukes.
Plus, Israel can more than take care of Iran itself. Why do we need to do their dirty work for them?
Within the USA, Jewish voters and voting contributions are an important part of politics. They are citizens and also deserve to have a voice. Israel is one of the largest buyer of US arms, an important part of the US economy. Israel is is also a pro American, Democracy in a part of the world that is free from Democracy.
While I do not always support Israel, I don't think it would benefit the US if we just told them to fuck off.
How the fuck is saying a nuclear Iran being a bad thing a "straw man"? Ahmadinejad is sending some pretty aggressive signals out there. Talking about wiping Israel off the face of the earth, shit like that. I don't think it is crazy to say that Iran is far from being a peaceful nation.
Additionally, a nuclear Iran is a bad thing for US interests and power in the region. That is all that ultimately matters. The USA does not need a nuclear armed major oil producer. This will prohibit future invasion or allow them to have leverage on other nations within the region, which will negatively effect us.
I am an American and support things which benefit Americans. Having a nuclear Iran would not be one of these. The US should us all means to stop this.
Ant, lots of countries buy arms from the USA; the difference between those countries and Israel is that we don't have a blind allegiance to them. If you think American foreign policy is driven by the creation of democracies elsewhere you need to have your cranium examined. If having democracy in the Middle East was so important, why did we give billions to Egypt's dictatorship? Why do we give aid to Saudia Arabia? Why do we support the UAE? Secondly, Israel isn't even an ally. If you want to look for an ally in the ME, look at Turkey.
Ahmadinejad isn't in control of Iran. His statements are irrelevant. The presidency in Iran isn't the presidency in the USA. He only has control over the police not the military. His declarations of a world without Israel pose no graver threat than a cripple's threat to do bodily harm on anyone who crosses him.
How does a nuke give them leverage over anyone? Is that how we get such cheap stuff from China, with threats of nuclear annihilation?
If you support things that help America, why not advocate the lifting of the bans for exports to Iran?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Ahmadinejad essentially powerless? Doesn't Iran's real power lie with the Guardian Council?
You are right. Jelly-minded people like Ant are easily tricked into thinking that Ahmadinejad is the baddiest man on earth, when in reality, he is a prime minister with control over the national police force. He is more akin to a governor of a state than the head of state. The Guardian Council runs the military and the Majils actually writes the laws.
Israel has 300 nuclear weapons and the most skilled army in the middle east. Iran is essentially a third world country with no navy or air force. As Ron Paul said when asked the hypothetical question about Iran invading Israel in 2008, "you might as well ask what would happen if Iran invaded Mars".
On the issue of electability, it really doesnt matter who is nominated because the Republican coalition has already been irreparably fractured. The 10-12% that support Ron Paul are gone from the party and arent coming back. Whether Paul decides to run as a third party candidate or not, the libertarian faction of the party that had been reliable since WW2 is now gone post-Bush....most just wont show up to vote for more big government and endless nation-building. I am a good example having voted republican until Bush and then having stopped voting entirely after the Republican party has tried to run Paul out of town in the last two national elections.
Israel is at the center of the Jewish conciousness and well be it so. But I'm merely pointing out that Israel is just one point among many in the big picture, and that the current political rhetoric is not effectively addressing the subject. I can't imagine living with the chaos they do over there, however, I also can't imagine why every effort to put it to rest isn't made.
Unless there's something not being said. Like, for example, that Israel wants to continue to expand its influence there and that peace is a secondary objective. The surrounding people are not terribly bright, and I do think that if the goal were peace that the diplomatic focus would be signifigantly different.
All good points, but you know what, one nuke in Tel Aviv is enough of a threat to stop Iran. One nuclear weapon is too much.
As for your Ron Paul point, you are right, if Paul runs as a 3rd party candidate, the Republicans will lose. Just as Nadar fucked Gore, Paul will fuck Romney. Whatever. If you think fucking Romney is a better case for Libertarianism than defeating Obama, so be it.
I don't think Romney is perfect, but I think he is better than Obama. I think Romney is experienced enough that he will work with Democrats when and if they split Congress.
I'm a realist. Four more years of Obama will mean nothing gets done and the country will be split even more. Romney will at least get something done and bring enough experience where he knows how to compromise.
If Paul was electable I would vote for him, but I just cannot throw my vote away, only to watch Obama be re-elected and see the Republicans take Congress.
A straw man is you saying that I'm implying that a nuclear Iran is a "good thing" and then arguing against that point...a point which only exists in your own mind.
I'm not even going to argue the rest of what you said. You're such a hardcore neocon that it will just result in a back-and-forth with nothing gained.
I am a neo con? More like an American tax payer who only gives a shit about the country I am a citizen of.
Self interested economic agent. The USA does what is in the USA's best interest. Plain and simple.
And by implying that Iran is not an issue you tacitly agree that a nuclear Iran is not a big deal. I think it IS a big deal.
@EOK - I am saying that not only does Israel benefit the US financially, but within the USA there is a huge Israeli lobby. We also have Jewish citizens which contribute large sums in campaign money to candidates who will support Israel. From a political economic view, it makes sense to support Israel. Besides, I don't see the upside to not supporting them. It won't turn Arab opinion in our favor. It won't make oil cheaper. It won't do anything.
We also get the benefit of allowing Israel to do our bidding in the ME. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel attacks Iran for us.
To call Ahmadinejad powerless would be a disservice. Either way, his lunacy is being supported by Khamenei who isn't doing enough to reign in his out of control dog.
1) Regardless of the power of Ahmadinejad, his message is being allowed or endorsed
2) Iran is seeking nuclear arms, something that does not benefit the US or Iranian neighbors
3) The official message coming out of Iran is hostile, aggressive and not something that would persuade anyone that they are peaceful
How these points are up for debate is beyond me.
Have any of you read The Israel Lobby? It by far is the best and most objective study of the subject that I came across. The authors are two highly respected political scientists from Harvard and UChicago respectively.
^^^ Thanks for that. I am finishing up a book on Washington, but will bookmark it for when I am done.
Ant, Jelly-Minded isn't an insult.
oh, please guys at this point Obama stands a pretty good chance of beeing reelected for the second term, no doubt for me. One big mistery for me: where the GOP gets all this idiots from? Or is it that the GOP doing some prank for some candid camera show on a whole country ? one just has to wonder: WTF GOP? It's time for reinvention..Seriously..
We need a mandatory spell/grammar check.
Ron Paul. He probably (that I'm saying definitely shows how far he's come) won't win the nomination. However, like the poll performances this and last time around, I think it advertises him and libertarianism and has really changed the tone of the debates, at least amongst the Republicans (remember in 2007 it was just a neo-con fest whereas now they are almost all taking about the Fed).
I really don't get how you should give up on RP because he is unelectable (probably true), in favour of Romney. Romney isn't even that centrist when it comes to the Presidential election (the Dem attack-ads are predictable, but effective, by targeting his Wall Street connections). If you want the facade of moderate electability, go Huntsman.
Holy hell, Rick Perry's "Strong" commercial is fucked up. Fuck this guy, and his supporters. Creepy as hell he got into any position of power and influence.
UFO - Jewish citizens within the USA carry a lot of influence. It isn't Israel, but Jewish Americans who support Israel and have family there. We might not theoretically care about Israel, but we care about US citizens who provide capital and campaign donations to politicians who support Israel.
UFO-we only care about Israel because Jews, who are only 2% of this country's population, wield tremendous amounts of wealth and power in this country. And they care about Israel A LOT. Even the secular jews I know are obsessed with Israel. But yeah, I share your sentiments. Israel can go fuck itself. The only reason they even exist is because of our generosity dating back to Harry Truman agreeing to support the creation of Israel in 1948. Jews in Israel should be singing hymns of hosannah to the U.S. government, rather than Yahweh.
I edited my post a bit, because it was too harsh. I'm actually in favor of supporting Israel's existance for a number of reasons, but the bottom line is that they are a chess piece. If we have some common cultural bonds and Jewish Americans want to drum up support here toadying up to the politicians and guilting people about the Holocost, that's nice, go for it. But the wealth and influence of American Jews would be brushed aside if there were no longer a use for Israel. I also have family that suffered in WWII and the death camps, so moral indignation directed at my irreverance is quite pointlessly wasted: your people were victimized, so were mine, life moves on.
I'll slow down: I'm basically saying that there is a massive power differential that needs to be recognized and spoken of in plain English if any type of solution to the constant chaos over there is to be realized. Being abrasive about it is something I need to work on, but at the same time there is a level of compressed frustration in getting basic points acknowledged and being confrontational seems to at least engage people.
Between the liberal PC and the conservative version ...dogmatic "religious speak"... I do believe a lot of people have lost sight of the basic realities over there. If what I'm saying offends the sensibilites of a few people, they need to deal with it because they're fast becomming irrelevant in the big picture. I can't imagine the shit they have to deal with on a daily basis over there, so I do sympathize. But sympathy does not equal blindness. Israel is an ally, and a good one for sure, this goes without saying...I'd simply like to think that everyone gets back in touch with reality before it bites them in the ass.
America is stretched to thin to put out every stupid fire anymore.
^^^^this technique (many muslim countries attacking Israel) was tried in 1973. It ended very poorly for the Arab League.
Why would any country attack Israel knowing they would retaliate en masse? How far have we fallen as a country that we were able to stare down the Soviet Union, with thousands of nukes and an army bigger then ours, and to actually negotiate with them, and yet today we cower over fantasy stories about crappy third world arab countries?
Listen, rather than treading down well worn and fruitless lines of reasoning, better to embrace reality and put the effort into burying the hatchet while there's something left over there. I say this in Israel's favor because you may or may not realize that the millenial christian fundamentalism that Bush cultivated viewed Israel's destruction as being a key component in their religious worldview....and let me translate that for you "we will sacrifice Israel for our own goals". It's some scary shit if you stop and really think about it, and Jews are fooling themselves to think that such an ideology can be contained once it gains a critical momentum.
Much better was Obama's approach of basically calling them out on their shit. We've effectively neutered the worst of the Islamist problems over the last decade and now some Muslim nations are (hopefully) moving towards democracy, so hey, go team. This should be seen as an opportunity by Israel and if it takes a few concessions on their end to drastically reduce / end the turbulence, then suck it up and do it... Obama drew a very hard line to make it clear that we do not have the same sacred cows to worry about and are not inclined to humor them at this point.
I agree, I mean Bush tried national healthcare also, but failed.
I think the Tea Party brought the Republicans back to the right (by right I mean smaller govt, less taxation, less wasteful regulation). Since I don't put much stock in the power of the President, I am focusing on someone who will sign Republican legislation. I don't think Obama will do it, but I think Romney will.
Like I said before, if I thought Paul could win, I would vote for him. I just don't think he can do it. Not happy about it, but I will take the least worst.
I dont see this is a real difference...Bush signed Medicare Part D which will likely end up costing just as much in subsidized health care as Obama's plan which may not even end up being implemented. Not only did he sign it but he touted it as his plan in order to pander to seniors...vote for me, you get free drugs! The numbers dont lie with respect to growth in government...Bush was worse then any president that came before him and really just as bad as Obama if you take out the automatic stabilizers that kicked in for Obamas full term (ie a full four years of unemplyment benefits with a 9% Urate).
I agree with you.
Wait. So Romney is unelectale because he doesn't have a "plan", but Obama gets elected saying Hope and Change like a drunken parrot?
No, I am saying that's why I don't like him. He is way too similar to Obama. I don't mean to sound like an Obama campaign ad, but Romney doesn't exactly promise great change.
He's unlikely to win because he is similar to Obama, similar enough that I think it could come down to likability. In that case, Obama might have an edge. Romney is really unattractive to the average American...Obama is too. I guess you could say it is too close to call.
I can hope that the US might just push Obama out for anybody. I can't say Romney is a great replacement, but at least he is a replacement/
UFO, Israel could completely and utterly destroy every single Middle Eastern countries military might in a few days. Compare their military hardware to that of every single country besides Saudia Arabia and you will see that Israel is in a different league militarily. There is no threat to Israel.
In regards to your assertion that Iran would be backed up by other countries, I would ask you to examine Iran's relationship with the Sunni countries in the ME. Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey joining a war against Israel would be improbable.
Israel's military has an unofficial 'first responder' status, which is a nice way of saying they are the functional equivalent of the famed 300 if there's a regional decompensation.
At this point in the game, delsional and hypothetical notions about Israel's military 'might' are irrelevant. We do not need them at all, and they are heavily dependant on us. Israel is skating on very thin ice and I'm merely suggesting a more cooperative tone...we're out to stabilize the region and harbor no ill will towards Israel.
Check this out. This guy's an Iowa pastor with a hard-on for Newt. Yikes:
The Israel debate has been a very interesting read. A couple points I'd like to add:
The US defense industry does benefit from sales to Israel but the majority of those funds come from the US taxpayers in the form of FMF (foreign military funding). I believe we give Israel ~$3B a year with the mandate that they buy US products. A serious issue for the US defense industry is developing anti-tamper solutions to keep the Israelies from buying our products, reverse engineering them, then competing against us in markets like India (with the benefit of not needing to recoup R&D costs).
I could be wrong here but I don't think Iran would have the means to delivery a nuclear attack on Israel. Their Air Force would never make it into Israeli airspace and I don't think they have missiles with the range to deliver a warhead (they may have missiles with the range but not load-carrying missiles). Believe it's the same with Pakistan. Not that this justifies them having nukes, just that the current panic about Iran is probably unwarrented.
I agree with the statements that Israel could handle any potential threats on their own. Any US arms sale to the Middle East has to be approved by AIPAC (an overreach of any lobby's power in my opinion). This, coupled with the annual US funding that far outstripped any other MENA county's defense budget, results in no Middle Eastern nation even coming close to Israel's military capabilities.
closer to reality
Newt spent the better part of the 90s trying to take down Clinton for getting head from Monica Lewinsky, and it turns out he was cheating on his wife the entire time.
a JFK expert has arrived. please enlighten us as to which is the correct theory.
Romney is the only electable candidate, and he'll be very vulnerable going up against Obama. The archconservative Republican constituency is a fascinating creature, and has more in common with the Islamists of the new North African democracies than with any other voting group in the world. Most American Libertarians are Republican, but as with libertarians everywhere, they simply don't have the critical mass to adopt a leading position within the conservative party. The conservative party is conservative; it has a few unrepresented libertarians thrown in there.
As for the whole Israel/Iran thing, UFO has got it figured out.
Newt vs. Obama; I will vote Newt. Ron Paul vs Obama; I will vote Obama.
The middle east is getting to the point where we should really start about thinking about declaring all out war on Iran and Pakistan with the purpose of total annihilation of all military personal and infrastructure all of kind.
good idea i'm sure that will work well. the world is truly bananas when people who call themselves "conservatives" think that we can make the world better by conquering it.
^^I can't tell if you're being serious or yoru normal self?
If you're being serious: God help us all because this is fucking ignorant. And, you better join the military and risk your own life before advising the risk of millions of lives.
No, would just risk the lives of those in the air force.
Newt had a great debate on Saturday night, and Romney actually had his worst performance. The newest polls show that Newt's lead has increased even more. Holy fuck. This is getting scary.
All of this debate is well and good and may be entertaining, but who is or isn't president is largely irrelevant. Taxes will be somewhere between 35 and 40 percent, we will be fighting in two or three meaningless "conflicts" with no clear objective of winning, and we will continue to kick the can down the road regarding entitlements and other serious structural issues. All the while the Fed will continue to screw with the money supply in an attempt to produce "growth." Has happened for the last 30 years and it will continue, regardless of who is president. Politics is a scam.
Also, can we please stop trying to assess the relative intelligence of the candidates based upon what they say in the public forum? Almost all politicians generally possess little real, detailed knowledge of any issues (if you've ever had to interact with them on a specific issue you will know what I'm talking about). Debates and speeches are just contests of who can say the same stupid high level platitudes in the most eloquent and slick manner. Doesn't necessarily prove anyone is a genius or an idiot.
love it or hate it Obama is going to get another term. the GOP has screwed itself in the ass once again. obama would crush romney. with gingrich it might be closer. might as well put up ron paul and give people a real chance for change.
HAHA Radio Host offers Gingrich $1M to drop out of race
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2011/12/savage-offers-gingrich-1-milli…
[quote=RagnarDanneskjold]HAHA Radio Host offers Gingrich $1M to drop out of race
http://www.michaelsavage.wnd.com/2011/12/savage-offers-gingrich-1-milli…]
Michael Savage is crazy as fuck. If Romney wins the nomination he has to pick a very conservative candidate. I think his best choice for VP would actually be Marco Rubio because his key constituencies are so far divergent from Romney's. Paul attracts the young, libertarian crowd but not the religious crowd (one that Romney won't attract either). On the other hand Rubio will attract the libertarians, religious people, and Hispanics. I'm not saying an entire group of people will vote for Romney/Rubio solely because one is Hispanic- but it will attract some.
Personally,I like Newt, but at the same time I recognize he has a small chance of winning. People who keep saying "separate private life and politics" are doing the same thing Newt did in the 90's- bitching about the private life of a person (not needing to be said is that Clinton was impeached for perjury not adultery). Newt could have a chance, but far, far less than Romney/Rubio would. I think every libertarian on here likes Rubio, he has a great story, he is religious and a family man, etc. Romney has been thoroughly vetted.
I will hate Ron Paul if he runs as a third party. I will honestly lose all respect for the man as he will have ensured an Obama victory. I would rather have some generic, centrist, Republican in office that signs the (Tea Party-controlled) Congressional legislation. If a Republican is elected, the next four years will be an era of government reduction of spending, shrinking of government, and other great things. If not, it will either lead to a stalemate or limited compromise (to the benefit of the Tea Party) as Obama focuses on his legacy.
Here's an analogy: back in 2004, a socialist told me that they hoped Bush would win because then he would make the case against himself and a Democrat would be elected in 2008. I think the same logic applies inversly: Obama winning in 2012 will make the case for a candidate that I think most people could get behind. The key point to remember is that Democrats are REALLY bad with succession, and the people they groom as party incumbents are just never up to snuff.
In my mind, this opens the door for a conservative that doesn't really need to take a hard line: the tea party and Obama will wear each other down with increasinly overblown rhetoric, and someone else basically just has to show up with some more or less good ideas and present themselves as the voice of reason. I'm hoping that the person that the GOP picks IS a voice of reason, and not another neo [liberal-conservative] idiot, because then they will truly get their asses handed to them.
"Fool me once, shame on you...fool me, fool me again....well....well, you can't fool me again." - fearless leader
Accusamus iusto voluptas explicabo voluptatem distinctio praesentium ad dolores. Eligendi natus quam consequatur eum distinctio. Dolorum libero enim sapiente sint corrupti. Dolorum maxime quia nam eos provident velit laudantium.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Qui qui qui ex accusantium voluptatem consequatur quia. Et ipsam cupiditate et. Eum adipisci doloribus ullam dolore quia. Nulla quisquam maxime numquam qui.
Rerum est aliquam veritatis occaecati. Sed est deserunt fuga vel sint dignissimos. Odit qui numquam voluptatem qui ipsam eligendi.
Ullam accusamus qui non voluptatem consequatur ipsam illo. Sequi quia sequi numquam illum.
Aut in explicabo quo iure. Neque et suscipit iure. Porro quia inventore accusamus consequatur non aut amet. Corporis est asperiores nisi id autem odit aut. Officia sequi quia consequuntur dignissimos voluptate.
Neque facere voluptas quam quia dolor. Doloribus blanditiis doloremque suscipit sit laborum.
Sunt sit dolor id nostrum quod nisi. Corrupti eaque incidunt consectetur est et. Unde et occaecati est inventore illo repellat sit. Adipisci ut tenetur labore eveniet deleniti ratione error quam. Voluptatum earum velit debitis unde aliquam quasi rem. Saepe sint reprehenderit ea mollitia. A magni debitis pariatur sint sequi fuga.
Ut praesentium sit reiciendis inventore et eum. Similique cum voluptas at minus. Tempora sit quas blanditiis magnam assumenda harum perferendis.
Saepe eum eum enim facere vel cum. Nemo voluptates molestiae sed illum porro ducimus. Quam id iure in quo autem placeat. Voluptatem consequuntur quisquam nihil aut.
Itaque aut vitae placeat. Laudantium impedit illum sit dolores nobis dolorem aliquid atque. Dolorem ducimus enim sint quas id. Dolor saepe sit omnis alias. Iure et iure incidunt vero consequatur voluptatum rerum dolorum. Perspiciatis nulla itaque incidunt.
Fuga laborum eveniet aspernatur quis enim minima. Est non magni sed voluptatum perspiciatis.
Quisquam voluptas quas quisquam minima sint aliquid. Ipsum ut et in consequatur. Laborum vero sequi laboriosam deleniti rem ut omnis non.
Laudantium voluptatum aut nam aperiam nisi et iure voluptas. Neque perferendis et harum recusandae sed.
Dolor error aliquid ipsam animi. Soluta qui illum consequatur repellat distinctio. Ipsa facilis voluptas quod sequi. Provident voluptas non ducimus ipsam.
Odit incidunt veniam praesentium. Ut quia et nobis quis quod. Omnis minus et doloremque et exercitationem. Molestiae id et et placeat.
Et eveniet aspernatur consectetur asperiores reiciendis aut. Maiores et assumenda ut eius officia laudantium qui. Voluptatibus molestiae voluptatem voluptatem distinctio rerum aut ducimus illo. Quod aperiam nostrum aspernatur iste et. Et itaque est nemo ducimus sit. Deleniti nihil voluptate velit at. Consectetur et voluptas sint quos doloribus.
Consequatur cumque vitae ut rerum. Velit aliquid nobis ut eius nihil ut. Autem illo quis eum error libero. Consequatur voluptatibus similique culpa aut. Ut assumenda dicta non assumenda qui. Numquam non doloremque consequuntur minima commodi et quisquam suscipit. Quae dicta aliquam perspiciatis exercitationem.
Minima illo quidem est veniam exercitationem minus maxime eos. Nostrum ut dolor ea enim ab rerum incidunt voluptatibus. Quibusdam molestiae veniam iure voluptas ipsa.
Omnis porro quo asperiores perferendis. Hic nisi adipisci commodi voluptatem quia suscipit sit. Eligendi voluptatem sunt error porro.
Et minus architecto nesciunt eaque dolor. Adipisci quam consequatur et aperiam. Molestiae molestiae dolores reprehenderit amet ipsa.
Quas qui minima odio. Laudantium eaque eligendi esse. Sunt modi molestiae quo officiis id.
Recusandae deleniti dolores illum doloribus mollitia voluptatem. Voluptate voluptatem et exercitationem facere ullam.