Paul leads GOP NH field 2016, Hillary leads Dems

[ishii]

No, because elections are usually about economics more than anything else. In 2014 and 2016 I can pretty much promise you that not too people are going to be thinking about condoms, gay rights or abortion.

If the GOP ran a minority social conservative for president, it’d be lights out. Why do you think they attack Palin, Bachmann, Cain, West and O’Donnell so harshly? They need such huge percentages in their coalition just to scrape by.

Also, voters want politicians who stand for things. Being all muddled just confuses the electorate and that’s where you get “I’m going to vote democrat or stay home because there’s no difference between the two parties”.

I agree with you on this: the Democrats desperately need the vote of women, minorities, gays, etc. any significant gains by the Republicans in these groups threatens the ability of the Democrats to win. And the people you name above did get attacked harshly. But they made it easier to get attacked. I mean, a witch? (McDonnel) A conservative firebrand in the House becoming president? (Bachmann) A former governor who can’t hold her own against the media? (Palin) A one-term congressman who lost his re-election? (West). No elective office, ever? (Cain). The Republicans can win with a minority but it has to be a serious, well qualified, well spoken, informed viable candidate, not an oddball. If the GOP nominated any of the guys you mentioned, the Democrats would win in a landslide. But don’t worry - there are plenty of qualified minority candidates among the Republicans - Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal to name two.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

The Democrat party has changed a great deal since the 1950’s and 60’s - it moved further left and took on the social agenda of the secular left. Why do you think so many Democrats left the party in the 70’s and 80’s? It also changed on foreign policy - becoming the party of appeasement and accommodation with communism.

I prefer a foreign policy of peace to that of war. How many innocent children are killed in a war, especially the ones waged nowadays with so many vicious and murderous weapons at the disposal of the USA. Accomodation with Chinese communism was not started by the Democrats. You have it wrong . Accomodation with communist pro-abortion Red China was initiated by the Republican president Richard Milhous Nixon. This Republican president met with and appeased the murderous communist leader of China, Mr. Mao Tse Tung. If you doubt this and continue to blame the Democrats for what the Republicans have done, the following is a link, showing the Republican Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon smiling and shaking the hand of one of the worst communist criminals of all time. Also, it was the Republican Nixon who went all the way to China to meet with and appease the communist Mao Tse Tung.
en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fileresident_Nixon_meets_with_China%27s_Communist_Party_Leader,_Mao_Tse-_Tung,02-29-1972-NARA-_194759.tif&page=1

 

[ishii]

I prefer a foreign policy of peace to that of war. How many innocent children are killed in a war, especially the ones waged nowadays with so many vicious and murderous weapons at the disposal of the USA. Accomodation with Chinese communism was not started by the Democrats. You have it wrong . Accomodation with communist pro-abortion Red China was initiated by the Republican president Richard Milhous Nixon. This Republican president met with and appeased the murderous communist leader of China, Mr. Mao Tse Tung. If you doubt this and continue to blame the Democrats for what the Republicans have done, the following is a link, showing the Republican Mr. Richard Milhous Nixon smiling and shaking the hand of one of the worst communist criminals of all time. Also, it was the Republican Nixon who went all the way to China to meet with and appease the communist Mao Tse Tung.
en.wikipedia.org/?title=Fileresident_Nixon_meets_with_China%27s_Communist_Party_Leader,_Mao_Tse-_Tung,02-29-1972-NARA-_194759.tif&page=1

Yes, Nixon did those things much to the delight of Democrats and to the dismay of conservatives in the GOP. If you want to start accusing people of selling out to communism - look no further than the actions of the Democrat led congress in the years 1974-75 - as the communists in Vietnam from the north invaded south in violation of the Peace accords they signed - as President Ford begged them (the peace loving Democrats) to allow him to use air power to repel the communists and help out the South Vietnamese. But the Democrats would have none of it - and the south fell - leading to communist oppression of the south - re-education camps, killings, etc. and helped pave the way for Khmer Rouge takeover of Cambodia as well. So apparently the foreign policy of peace you speak of wasn’t really good for the health of those living in southeast asia was it.

Furthermore, the Democrats continued their opposition to Reagan’s policies - arms buildup, Reagan doctrine, SDI, etc. which helped topple the Soviet union and free millions living under communism in eastern Europe and Russia. His policies were passed, in spite of opposition from the majority of Democrats.

tomdstone, a policy of strength and resolve is the best way to keep the peace, not a policy of weakness and indecision - such as characterized the foreign policy of the Democrats in the latter part of the 20th century.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

tomdstone, a policy of strength and resolve is the best way to keep the peace, not a policy of weakness and indecision - such as characterized the foreign policy of the Democrats in the latter part of the 20th century.

Ishii

I disagree. The problem today is that the USA has thousands of military bases overseas and all kinds of horrific nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and it spies on its friends such as Angela Merkel, listening in to all of her cell phone conversations. There have been too many innocent children killed by US wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Vietnam. And the problem that the world has been having with Iran is due to the fact that the USA orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953. After the CIA engineered coup, the democratically elected leader of Iran was imprisoned for three years and put under house arrest thereafter.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I personally would definitely consider Paul.

I agree with his father on a lot of things, as well. Paul Sr. is also staunchly pro-life, as well.
Don’t know about the son, though.

My opinion, of course.
And sticking to it.

 

[Tomdstone]

I like the views of Ron Paul (Sr.) on foreign affairs. But does his son have the same views on foreign interventions by the USA etc., as does the father Ron Paul?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I like the views of Ron Paul (Sr.) on foreign affairs. But does his son have the same views on foreign interventions by the USA etc., as does the father Ron Paul?

Pretty much.

 

[Tomdstone]

Pretty much.

In that case I am for Paul. However, because of the number of rednecks in the USA, it is difficult to see how Paul would win. But I think that the ticket of Christie for president, Paul for VP could win over Hillary. Hillary has too many negatives.

 

[ishii]

I disagree. The problem today is that the USA has thousands of military bases overseas and all kinds of horrific nuclear, biological and chemical weapons and it spies on its friends such as Angela Merkel, listening in to all of her cell phone conversations. There have been too many innocent children killed by US wars in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Vietnam. And the problem that the world has been having with Iran is due to the fact that the USA orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953. After the CIA engineered coup, the democratically elected leader of Iran was imprisoned for three years and put under house arrest thereafter.

Tomdstone, I want to make sure that we do not misunderstand each other - because we seem to be talking about two different things. Here are some points I’ve made which I noticed you didn’t respond to:

I believe that the strength and resolve of the United States led by Reagan helped create the environment in which the Cold War could be won without firing a shot. The Democrats were all for appeasement of the Soviet Union during the 70’s and 80’s, while the Republicans (for the most part) were for “rolling back” communism. And that is ironic because the left and the Democrats called Reagan “dangerous” and likely to start a war. And what he did was end a war and help bring about the freedom of millions.

The Democrat party during the 70’s and 80’s was weak and ineffective. Their abandonment of the south Vietnamese to the communists in the mid 70’s was shameful.

Nixon’s opening to China was a “realpolitik” move designed to exploit the divide between the Soviet Union and China. Realpolitik can cause strange bedfellows: recall that we were allies with the Soviet Union led by Stalin ( a butcher to rival Mao even) in WW2 in order to defeat Hitler. I am very sympathetic to your argument against striking up relationships with countries led by men like Chairman Mao. Perhaps the opening seen in the light of making peace not with Mao, but with a billion Chinese and the avoidance of war with them - might have been a step in the right direction.

Re: Iran - I think the problem the world has with Iran is its support of terrorism and threat to Israel and other democracies - much more so than a Cold War era coup that took place in 1953.

Ishii

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone, I want to make sure that we do not misunderstand each other - because we seem to be talking about two different things. Here are some points I’ve made which I noticed you didn’t respond to:

I believe that the strength and resolve of the United States led by Reagan helped create the environment in which the Cold War could be won without firing a shot. The Democrats were all for appeasement of the Soviet Union during the 70’s and 80’s, while the Republicans (for the most part) were for “rolling back” communism. And that is ironic because the left and the Democrats called Reagan “dangerous” and likely to start a war. And what he did was end a war and help bring about the freedom of millions.

The Democrat party during the 70’s and 80’s was weak and ineffective. Their abandonment of the south Vietnamese to the communists in the mid 70’s was shameful.

Nixon’s opening to China was a “realpolitik” move designed to exploit the divide between the Soviet Union and China. Realpolitik can cause strange bedfellows: recall that we were allies with the Soviet Union led by Stalin ( a butcher to rival Mao even) in WW2 in order to defeat Hitler. I am very sympathetic to your argument against striking up relationships with countries led by men like Chairman Mao. Perhaps the opening seen in the light of making peace not with Mao, but with a billion Chinese and the avoidance of war with them - might have been a step in the right direction.

Re: Iran - I think the problem the world has with Iran is its support of terrorism and threat to Israel and other democracies - much more so than a Cold War era coup that took place in 1953.

Ishii

I believe that you are wrong as I believe that problems started with Iran soon after the USA organized the coup which overthrew and imprisoned the legally, fairly and democratically elected leader of Iran. Iran has not forgotten this act, which they regard as a criminal act.

 

[Tomdstone]

I personally would definitely consider Paul.

I agree with his father on a lot of things, as well. Paul Sr. is also staunchly pro-life, as well.
Don’t know about the son, though.

My opinion, of course.
And sticking to it.

Does Rand Paul have a problem with plagiarism?

 

[Tomdstone]

I believe that the strength and resolve of the United States led by Reagan helped create the environment in which the Cold War could be won without firing a shot. The Democrats were all for appeasement of the Soviet Union during the 70’s and 80’s, while the Republicans (for the most part) were for “rolling back” communism.

It was a Republican President Richard Milhous Nixon who led the appeasement of the Chinese communist leader Mao Tse Tung. As far as I can see, this appeasement policy of the Republicans had good results. The appeasement of communist China has resulted in a much more free China, and it is now better for the Chinese people. Before the appeasement policy of the US, communist China was a lot less free than it is now. People often take the example of Neville Chamberlin as an example of where appeasement did not work. However, just one such example, does not prove that appeasement will not work in every case. It is much better to appease the communists in China as the Republicans have done, rather than to go to war with them.

 

[ProVobis]

I thought Pope John Paul II was credited with “rolling back” communism?

 

[ishii]

Yes that is the view of liberal democrat Catholics who loathe the idea of a republican getting any credit for ending the Cold War. They’re wrong of course.

Ishii

 

[Mulligan2]

No, I’m saying the Republican party should have nominated the candidate that best represented their values.

Again, how do you know that they didn’t?

His campaign in the primaries was totally negative. The voters weren’t buying into Governor Romney’s views, because he wasn’t articulating them; he was slamming his competition. I believe that Governor Romney didn’t have true supporters, just people that saw him as the least worst choice because they believed the ads. Ads that others couldn’t compete with because lack of money.

As a whole, primary voters tend to be more actively engaged in the political process than general election voters. Your comment that the GOP primary voters selected the “least worst choice” is not a ringing endorsement of the republican primary field.

If social conservatives are less competitive in national elections, then there is little hope of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Correct.

But I don’t think there is evidence for that and would like to hear your example of a true social conservative that ran poorly for a national office.

My comment was referencing a candidate - such as Santorum - who is known primarily as a social conservative. Let’s say Santorum won the primary, and then used the so-called 5 non-negotiables as the centerpiece of his campaign. Opposing marriage equality, reproductive freedom, and scientific progress is not a winning formula for national elections. If the GOP nominates Santorum in 2016, he will lose badly, even if the Democratic party nominates a flawed candidate like Hilary Clinton.

Over the past 40 years, the losing candidates in presidential elections have been either the less dynamic candidate or the candidate who ran an inferior campaign. George W. Bush would be the GOP nominee over the last 40 years who was most reactionary on social issues, and he beat a candidate (Vice President Gore) who was less dynamic and who ran an inferior campaign.

 

[ishii]

It was a Republican President Richard Milhous Nixon who led the appeasement of the Chinese communist leader Mao Tse Tung. As far as I can see, this appeasement policy of the Republicans had good results. The appeasement of communist China has resulted in a much more free China, and it is now better for the Chinese people. Before the appeasement policy of the US, communist China was a lot less free than it is now. People often take the example of Neville Chamberlin as an example of where appeasement did not work. However, just one such example, does not prove that appeasement will not work in every case. It is much better to appease the communists in China as the Republicans have done, rather than to go to war with them.

I’m not sure that the appeasement of Hitler prior to WW2 quite compares to Nixon’s opening up to China, much less the opening serving as a bright shining example of the benefits of appeasement of enemies as a wise foreign policy. Interesting that you criticized Nixon’s shaking the hand of “one of the worst criminals of all time” yet above you seem to be praising Nixon’s opening up to China.

I believe that we should work for peace, and use war only as a last resort, when all other measures have failed. I do believe that we are over-extended, and spend too much money on defending countries that can defend themselves. I don’t believe that we should be the world’s policeman. That said, I think that overall, the foreign policy and defense policies espoused by the Democrats from the late 60’s onward encouraged our enemies to be bolder and did not contribute to the cause of peace.

Ishii

 

[ProVobis]

I like the views of Ron Paul (Sr.) on foreign affairs. But does his son have the same views on foreign interventions by the USA etc., as does the father Ron Paul?

He should and he’s also critical of the Federal Reserve.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yes that is the view of liberal democrat Catholics who loathe the idea of a republican getting any credit for ending the Cold War. They’re wrong of course.

Ishii

Uh, so you object to Pope JPII helping end Communism?

 

[ishii]

Uh, so you object to Pope JPII helping end Communism?

No, I object to the view that it was only Pope John Paul 2 and that Reagan and Thatcher had no role in helping end communism. It really was a combination of all three. In my earlier post, I made no statement that only Reagan ended the Cold War and that the Pope had no role. Would be nice if my posts were read more clearly.

Ishii

 

[CrossofChrist]

No, I object to the view that it was only Pope John Paul 2 and that Reagan and Thatcher had no role in helping end communism. It really was a combination of all three.

Fair enough.

In my earlier post, I made no statement that only Reagan ended the Cold War and that the Pope had no role. Would be nice if my posts were read more clearly.

Ishii

ProVobis:

I thought Pope John Paul II was credited with “rolling back” communism?

Ishii:

Yes that is the view of liberal democrat Catholics who loathe the idea of a republican getting any credit for ending the Cold War. They’re wrong of course.

Maybe that’s not how you meant it, but the way it is written can make it seem like you’re saying Catholics who give JPII credit for ending Communism are “wrong of course”.