Another Repub abandons the ship!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by arkfarmbear, May 22, 2011.

  1. arkfarmbear

    arkfarmbear New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Mitch Daniels is the latest to jump off the sinking ship aka Repubs 2012 race for the White House.
    Pitiful, just plain pitiful.
     
  2. Lampwick

    Lampwick New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    Somewhat inaccurate, bear. Daniels was never on the ship to begin with; he just announced he has no intention of boarding.
     
  3. D_ewjjde

    D_ewjjde New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    0
    Also, why is it pitiful?
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Governor Mitch Daniels was one of the many names that have been thrown around for possible contention, but there was no official confirmation about running or not until now. At the same time, if Daniels did run he would have a big problem with convincing the nation why he went ahead and cut all funding for Planned Parenthood, therefore making life more difficult for women receiving Medicaid in Indiana.
     
  5. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    Republican ship seems to be stuck in the mudflats at the moment. For the moment my money is on the guy in the magic underwear.
     
  6. arkfarmbear

    arkfarmbear New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arkansas

    Because the party that once represented the conservative, pro business big money groups has been hijacked by right wing nut jobs and there is no longer a place under the big tent for the traditional folks.
     
  7. arkfarmbear

    arkfarmbear New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    863
    Likes Received:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Arkansas


    I don't think he will play well in the South. His religion will be his most controversial baggage but he comes across as an arrogant,condescending yankee to boot.
     
  8. BobLeeSwagger

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,481
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think we should celebrate someone dropping out of the presidential race that isn't a complete idiot. It's hard enough to find someone willing to run.
     
  9. Hoss

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    12,050
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    398
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Eastern town
    and with that Tim Pawlenty stepped in Pawlenty 2012
     
  10. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    so OK guys and gals ------ all you conservatives who just LUV to go on and on and on and on about how bad Obama is..................who are YOU hoping will be YOUR candidate in 2012??????
     
  11. Eric_8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2010
    Messages:
    3,574
    Likes Received:
    6
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego
    I hate to say it, but I've honestly no clue...I'm still thankful Trump is a no go.

    Everyone with a rational mindset has it right about the hopeful GOP strategy. You have got to run not on name recognition, but on Obama's failures. I'm not trying to rock the boat when I say failures, but that is how the Republicans are going to make his actions out to be, with the hope of swaying the on the fence Indies to the GOP side.

    I know this has been said ad nauseum, but get ready for the meanest election/re-election campaigns we've seen.
     
  12. lucidbass

    lucidbass New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    While you make fun of the Republican party 'sinking', your whole country is going down the shitter with a president who's Secretary of Treasury is the former president of the Federal Reserve, the root of your country's problems.

    Politics isn't about petty namecalling and supporting one party over the other. It's about issues. And if you look closely at both parties, they mostly deal in a very similar way with those issues. Both striving for more interference and control over the market. And while Bush was an awful president who dealt awfully with the 9/11 situation, let's not forget he got handed a terrible hand of cards either, seeing as 9/11 was the result of Clinton's foreign policy.
     
  13. itsthepopei

    itsthepopei Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2010
    Messages:
    330
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    176
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I agree that that will be the republican strategy however i think the administration has a huge trump card. I think they have been holding back on bragging till the re election campaign so the legislative achievement list has maximum punch. Obama has been patterning his image after FDR who was notorious for this. The privet sector job situation is also getting better although it is being offset by job losses in the public sector.
     
  14. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Possibly not the first time a Republican candidate has faced that personification, though. :rolleyes:

    I've often wondered how the religion card plays in the 'New South' -- perhaps this next election cycle, we'll have front row seats and see.
     
  15. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,369
    Likes Received:
    2,099
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Now that certainly is enough to wake someone up. Care to elaborate?
     
  16. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo
    Please, lucidbass... our whole country is not going down the 'shitter'. That's a wonderfully offensive statement for you to make, and it's entirely based on... what? Your marvelously extensive experience? Your extensive reading at University? Come on. Please understand I'm not your enemy here, but I'm going to let you in on a little secret: at the ripe old age of 22, you simply lack the credibility to issue such a broad opinion and have it go unchallenged. If you were Paul Krugman, maybe. Milton Friedman? Sure. You? Definitely not.

    However, here's a simple trick you can employ that will ensure you don't lose your credibility with us in your first year of membership: say, "in my opinion". Nobody will fault you for having an opinion. We might roll our eyes, but it's considerably less offensive. If you want to be really credible, point out that you don't live in the United States and that your opinions are shaped by what you read in the European press. Then, we can put your broad statements into context and engage in a meaningful debate. As it is, I think most people will just ignore you.

    Also, I think you need to do a little fact-checking: you imply that Timothy Geithner ran the Federal Reserve prior to his current post as Secretary of the Treasury. The Federal Reserve is made up of twelve Federal Reserve Districts. Secretary Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. In that role, he was a member of the Federal Open Market Committee. He certainly influenced Fed policy, but he wasn't in charge of the Fed. You can read all about it here and brush up on the topic. One would think if you truly believed the Fed was the problem, you wouldn't flub a major detail like the role Secretary Geithner had with the organization prior to his nomination for the top Treasury post.

    As to the Fed being at the core of our problems? You can find that topic in other discussions here. It has very little to do with the Republicans having issues finding a high-quality candidate to put into the next Presidential election cycle. So, the first paragraph of your post was an off-topic, ridiculous opinion without substantiation and it includes a false presumption that you could have easily researched.

    Don't even get me started about your comments regarding Clinton's presidency -- you were what... 11 years old when he left office?
     
  17. lucidbass

    lucidbass New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    To be fair, I'm saying 'Clinton', but Bush senior, Reagan and most preceding presidents are guilty of it as well, but, involvement in the Middle East and overinvolvement in Israel were called the reasons for the 9/11 attacks by the people who actually planned it. And those plans were already made before Bush was even elected. So to point fingers at Bush for 9/11 while viewing Clinton as a glorious president who would've fixed it all is just ridiculous. It's, amog others, his actions that caused friction between the West and the Middle East in the first place. The Middle East and the Balkans were bombed under Clinton too, let's not forget.

    Also, let's not forget that Bush went 180 on the people seeing as his views on foreign policy were completely different when he ran for president in 2000.

    I'm really the farthest you can get from a Bush supporter. Hated his presidency. But let's compare what Bush is saying here to what Obama said during his campaign and let's also compare what they actually did post election.

    Basically, what I'm saying is... I'm sick of the fingerpointing and party-loyalty, even though it's the same shit we've been through before. Whether Republican or Democrat. So going around pointing fingers at the other party and get all up-your-ass about the party you support just reeks of hypocrisy.

    Just goes to show that people don't vote for policies, or actions, but for the image the party tries to sell itself with. People love the idea of socialist progressivism, but they don't actually want that. So they'll vote for the Democrats, because while they're every bit as corporatist as the Republican party (Obama got the most corporate support out of any presidential candidate during the 2008 elections), they project an image of red Bolshevism.

    Also, people love the idea of the small, limited government where people can do whatever they want, they don't actually want that either (people have this weird view on freedom: 'I have the freedom not to hear this, somebody censor this man!'). They're happy with the size of government, but they get the feeling of fighting the good, American, small-government fight by voting Republican, even though they don't give a shit either way.

    So they all fight on issues that, though important, aren't really fixing any of America's problems. Just so they can feel like they're actually two different parties (immigration, abortion, gay rights, etc).

    Ever noticed how Republicans are more likely to support Democrats than Libertarians or Democrats are more likely to support Republicans than Socialists? American politics is all about the cheap thrill. People claim to want change, but they love status quo. So they go for the next best thing, the illusion of change.
     
  18. lucidbass

    lucidbass New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Messages:
    288
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Fine, then don't bother with me if you don't take what I have to say seriously. I don't care. It's a message board, I'm not holding gun in your mouth forcing me you to take me seriously. Everyone thinks they're more enlightened than the next guy. I don't care. As I said, it's a message board. Be selective. Ignore what I have to say if you don't think it's worth your time. Much like I'm not going to bother with your posts in the future myself. Besides, I'm not posting to be taken seriously by you or anyone specifically. I post because I want to and if someone wants to engage me based on what I have to say, I'll play along.

    The fact that it's my opinion is implied by the fact that I'm stating what is being stated in the first place. If you have trouble discerning between 'opinion' and 'fact' without someone pointing it out for you, you're in absolutely no position to take part in a discussion.


    It's 2011. We have high speed internet. We can be selective when it comes to our news sources.

    'You're European, therefore your source of information is less accurate than mine'. Trying to discredit a person without knowing anything about them so their opinion seems less valuable so you can gain a imaginary upperhand is the oldest trick in the book. If you're every bit as intelligent and informed as you try to come across, you wouldn't resort to petty tactics.

    Oh I know. I was merely implying his involvement. Not that he ran the whole system (which I know Ben Bernanke is the head of for a few years now). While I misphrased what I actually had to say, the implication was his involvement with it. Which you actually understand, you're just trying to make it look like my opinion is less valuable than yours by focusing on a mistake. Regardless of how it actually doesn't affect my point at all.

    My comments were more regarding party-loyalty and that the arrogance projected by a lot of people on this board because of their preference for the party and to a lesser degree in this thread is rather silly.

    I also wasn't born before humans evolved. Doesn't change my knowledge on pre-human life. Again, it's 2011. We have high speed internet. The world is one big fountain of knowledge. Regardless, you're still trying to discredit what I have to say, but this time based on my age, again not actually on what it is that I have to say. Which brings me back to why I'm not going to bother with you after this post of mine and why it's so great that you can be selective in who you take seriously on a message board.
     
  19. ColoradoGuy

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,097
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    366
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Denver (CO, US)
    Verified:
    Photo

    Excellent! I guess the door is open for me to be an expert on all things European. :rolleyes: I'm not trying to discredit what you said... by erring on your basic facts and rambling off-topic, you did that. On top of that, your extensive defense (oddly, which doesn't defend the key points you were trying to make) tells me more than what you actually wrote. You'll learn.

    I was merely offering some suggestions about how to post your opinions in the future. The more offensive they are, the more care you should take with positioning them... that's all.
     
    #19 ColoradoGuy, May 26, 2011
    Last edited: May 26, 2011
  20. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
    Which guy in the magic underwear? Thar be too. John Hunstman, in a different election, would probably make a reasonably good president. He's not "married" to the GOP like evangelicals are to Jesus, and doesn't play on the fact that technically he's a mormon. And he's been a reasonable Obama sunbeam as ambassador to China. Mitt of the Romneys, however, is just too damn photogenic. For those too young to remember, there were once four BIG auto manufacturers in the USA until about 1963. Mitt's pappy, George, was president of American Motors Company, helping it fail until the 'Mericuhn phrase became "The Big Three car companies and the other one." George watched comfortably, mostly from his Governor's office, as AMC burned into total bankruptcy, even though there are photos of him standing around with his successors, all wearing sparkly smiles as they stood behind an AMC Pacer.

    Now there is a classic metaphor of 'Mericuhn can do and industry . . . the AMC Pacer. Anybody have one they'd like to sell? I'd prefer an early 1975 with AC and the south west upholstery motif. An automatic transmission is OK. :biggrin1:
     
    #20 midlifebear, May 27, 2011
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
Draft saved Draft deleted