[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
And I never said he wanted to “exterminate” them. After all, if he did that what would there be left for our military to do?[/quote]
Of course. So you’re saying he is only motivated to commit mass murder of brown-skinned people, but not complete extinction - after all, he’s got to keep some around so that he can continue the perpetual sport of the occasional mass murder.
Well done. Again, you reign as the champion of the idiots. Run upstairs and tell mom.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Strawman. I never said Bush wanted to do it. I said neocons like that he did it.[/quote]
Liar. You said Bush’s foreign policy was mass murder of brown-skinned people.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
You do him no service with your individual support. Dummies like you will cost Paul more than he could ever hope to gain by having you on his side.[/quote]
Four gold stars from the wise man Push.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
And his poll numbers are climbing back up. Prepare for a second term by making your peace with it.[/quote]
Serious question for you guys.
If The President is indeed climbing in the Polls (I think that it’s just a “blip” in a series of meaningless surveys at this point…)
But for the sake of discussion…if the climb is “real”; how much of that can the GOP blame on themselves?
(Putting this all on the “Nanny-State” mentality of the U.S. is weak, by the way. I know plenty of people struggling who would not vote for the President to be the proverbial Dog Catcher).
Mufasa[/quote]
Woke up super early and read that only two candidates–two who had campaigns left over and ready to go from last election–made the Virginia primary ballot…Romney and Paul. Move primary dates up earlier, and mix in Virginia’s rather demanding petition requirements, and this is what happens. Only two. The two, again, who had things in place from their previous run. One guy, who while not bug-crap insane like Paul, conservatives don’t want to vote for (think, McCain, all over again). And the other being Ron Paul himself (nuff said). The guy leading in the polls in Virginia didn’t even make the ballot…
With even a bit of an Obama bounce, a lack of GoP enthusiasm with a shoe-horned in Romney, increasing frustration among the base, I think we’re going to get a second term President. The republican party is a bad joke.
That’s exactly my point, Sloth.
While we are a LONG way from the election; this cycle seems to be following a VERY overused adage.
In other words, this election (IMO) isn’t one for the President to win…but for the GOP to lose.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
That’s exactly my point, Sloth.
While we are a LONG way from the election; this cycle seems to be following a VERY overused adage.
In other words, this election (IMO) isn’t one for the President to win…but for the GOP to lose.
Mufasa[/quote]
Maybe.
But if the Republican party seriously thinks that it is about guns and Jesus it needs to be broken.
As it is going now, its main constituency, white middle class America is losing ground anyway, it would only be a question of time before it needs to reinvent itself.
Better for it to learn its lesson now and let Obama stand at the helm when the shit hits the fan.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
In other words, this election (IMO) isn’t one for the President to win…but for the GOP to lose.[/quote]
Dead on, Mufasa, and lose it they can - the best (and most recent) example of that was the standoff over the payroll tax cut extension. After getting Obama to concede on the pipeline (a nice and pragmatic victory), the “tea party” freshmen decided to stage a mini-revolt and demand that the done deal be undone and a year’s extension be enacted in place of the two-month. These bozos took a nice victory from the GOP and exploded it. Ultimately, the mini-revolt disintegrated and the House unanimously passed the bill - but the “strategy” was idiotic and showed the naivete of these GOPers.
It’s incredible. Obama has gift-wrapped independents and moderates and delivered them to the GOP, if the GOP will simply take them. But the GOP appears to want to emulate the Democrats in establishing litmus-test politics where only 'True Believers" need apply.
Bolt:
Another confusing thing about this particular fight was how unclear it was as to what they (the TeaRepubs) were fighting for.
With the most recent standoffs (like the Debt Ceiling debate); regardless as to which side you were on; you understood what each side was fighting for.
Even with this issue being “resolved”…its unclear what the fight was all about. If it was merely to say “no” to whatever the President proposes; I think that this will wear thin as a winning strategy.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Even with this issue being “resolved”…its unclear what the fight was all about. If it was merely to say “no” to whatever the President proposes; I think that this will wear thin as a winning strategy.
Mufasa[/quote]
Do you honestly think the ~10% - 15% of the folks who make the actual difference in a presidential election will really migrate away from the Republican nominee strictly because House Repubs insisted on not raising the debt limit? Because they wanted to take a shot at reigning in spending against a spendthrift incumbent? Really?
(Maybe you’re right but I can’t help but be somewhat incredulous.[/quote]
No, Push…I didn’t say that at all.
As it stands today; I actually don’t think that the President will win a second term. What I was pointing out was “just saying no” is not going to continue to be a winning strategy.
Now; as Bolt pointed out to me once; maybe when the GOP holds the White House AND both the Senate and House; they will begin to truly Govern.
We’ll see.
As far as the Debt Ceiling debate; I stated that those lines were clear. It was this last standoff (the payroll tax cut/unemployment) where goals were unclear.
One other thing; the GOP has shown an ability to spend with the best of 'em.
Mufasa
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Even with this issue being “resolved”…its unclear what the fight was all about. If it was merely to say “no” to whatever the President proposes; I think that this will wear thin as a winning strategy.
Mufasa[/quote]
Do you honestly think the ~10% - 15% of the folks who make the actual difference in a presidential election will really migrate away from the Republican nominee strictly because House Repubs insisted on not raising the debt limit? Because they wanted to take a shot at reigning in spending against a spendthrift incumbent? Really?
(Maybe you’re right but I can’t help but be somewhat incredulous.[/quote]
I don’t think they’ll migrate away strictly because of it, but it certainly was a push in that direction.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
…Even with this issue being “resolved”…its unclear what the fight was all about. If it was merely to say “no” to whatever the President proposes; I think that this will wear thin as a winning strategy.
Mufasa[/quote]
Do you honestly think the ~10% - 15% of the folks who make the actual difference in a presidential election will really migrate away from the Republican nominee strictly because House Repubs insisted on not raising the debt limit? Because they wanted to take a shot at reigning in spending against a spendthrift incumbent? Really?
(Maybe you’re right but I can’t help but be somewhat incredulous.[/quote]
I don’t think they’ll migrate away strictly because of it, but it certainly was a push in that direction.
[/quote]
Agree, GL.
Did these last “standoffs” move the 10-15% that Push speaks of (Moderates/Independents) solidly into the President’s corner?
Of course not.
But it didn’t move them to the side of the TeaPublicans either.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Bolt:
Another confusing thing about this particular fight was how unclear it was as to what they (the TeaRepubs) were fighting for.
With the most recent standoffs (like the Debt Ceiling debate); regardless as to which side you were on; you understood what each side was fighting for.
Even with this issue being “resolved”…its unclear what the fight was all about. If it was merely to say “no” to whatever the President proposes; I think that this will wear thin as a winning strategy.[/quote]
I agree, and the error was one of skill, judgment, and experience as much as ideology. The House freshmen appear to think that every single legislative issue is pitched ideological battle - it’s not, and these guys threaten to muck up legislative gains made by their new majority in Congress with this attitude.
The difference between the 2 months and one year extension was negligible - no one would seriously modify their economic behavior between a shift from a 2 month window to a year - and the legislation was mostly political optics. Freshmen House members saw something inherently “wrong” or “unsatisfactory” about the proposal coming from Dems…solely because it came from the Dems.
And that was dumb. And the House freshmen had to concede. And as one commentator noted (paraphrase), “now, instead of the narrative being President Obama caving on the pipeline, the narrative is the House GOP caved on the tax cut extension”.
This, of course, is similar to how Obama has governed - divisive, and inherently refusing to trust the other side. The freshmen GOP are guilty of the same sins. The country needs both parties to get away from this.