Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
pnewton said:
FYI, does anyone see a logical contradiction with someone who says that saying people vote out of ignorance is wrong but then says, “You are free to cast your vote in whatever illogical manner you prefer?”
Click to expand...
No contradiction at all. Words mean things, and knowledge is not the same as logical reasoning. You can vote based on looks, shoe size, etc., but that doesn’t mean you’re ignorant.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
You can refuse to believe the facts of the matter. Lots of people do. 🤷
Click to expand...
If you say so. Some Libertarians hate Lincoln, not sure what “facts” they have.

The Federal government just could have bought all the slaves! Now there’s an argument for “smaller government”, if I ever heard one. Its right up there with “legalizing and taxing” many things.
 
ProVobis said:
No, and he’s not Ross Perot either but the point is that your previous argument falls apart if it can be shown a third or fourth or fifth party vote can have the potential of drawing votes from both major parties almost equally. You will probably disagree with me but I tend to think Ron Paul has and will attract both Republican and Democrat anti-war and anti-Fed and pro-life people.
Click to expand...
I tend to think your wrong. Ron Paul would draw few Democrats in relation to Republicans.
 
scipio337 said:
I’m not sure what evidence you have that NO independent voters will be voting for the GOP.
Click to expand...
Here is who will not be voting for Santorum, outside of the die-hard conservative GOPers.

anti-war independents
anti-war, pro-life Democrats who have become disillusioned by Obama

I have heard talk from many on the Democrat side of the house, many of them right here, who say that they cannot in good faith, support Obama anymore. But they look at Santorum and find him too warhawkish and sanctimonious to stomach voting for him. In fact, the name “Sanctorum” has been used to describe him. Most of them cannot support Romney and his perceived (correctly or not) lack of compassion for the poor. Gingrich is more and more being seen as the latest victim of a brutal campaign and an also-ran. So what you have are two candidates with strong appeal to the GOP base, but little to no appeal to independent voters or cross-over Democrats.

On the other side of the isle, many in Obama’s own base are loosing faith in his ability to lead. He is seen as a failure on the basic tenet of leadership, accept the blame and share the credit. Obama’s tenet seems to be, find someone else to blame and take all the credit. He is faster than a 4 year old with his hand caught in the cookie jar to blame someone else when things go wrong. It is almost amusing…if he weren’t the most powerful person on the planet. He is THE most divisive political figure we have ever seen. Not because he is strongly entrenched in his ideals. It is because he intentionally pits groups of people against each other. He is a classic “combat collectivist”, grouping peopel together and then telling group A that the people in group B are the cause of their problems.
 
scipio337 said:
I’m not sure what evidence you have that NO independent voters will be voting for the GOP.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it that way, though I see now my statement has two possible meanings. Let me rephrase it. I think it is unrealistic to think that we independent voters will vote for any and every Republican (or Democrat) based on the party. We may vote for that person who is a nominee, but then we may not. Thank you for just bringing it up so I could clarify and not insulting or assuming the worse. Charity will go further in these discussions than insult.
 
scipio337 said:
I’m not sure what evidence you have that NO independent voters will be voting for the GOP.
Click to expand...
The evidence is the last election in 2008 because we did not have a solidly moral candidate. There is one GOP candidate that I can vote for this year and it is not RP.
 
pnewton said:
I didn’t say it that way, though I see now my statement has two possible meanings. Let me rephrase it. I think it is unrealistic to think that we independent voters will vote for any and every Republican (or Democrat) based on the party. We may vote for that person who is a nominee, but then we may not. ***Thank you for just bringing it up so I could clarify and not insulting or assuming the worse. ***Charity will go further in these discussions than insult.
Click to expand...
See above emphasis, rlg.

And he was right, I did take (mistakenly) take his post to mean something other than what he meant. 🙂
 
rlg94086 said:
No contradiction at all. Words mean things, and knowledge is not the same as logical reasoning. You can vote based on looks, shoe size, etc., but that doesn’t mean you’re ignorant.
Click to expand...
Ignorance shouldn’t be a derogatory term. It’s simply an observation or admission, cured by simply being presented with the truth. But if you think you know it all already, now that’s a problem. :slapfight:
 
Mitt Romney can’t count on home-state advantage in Michigan

“Michigan’s been my home, and this is personal,” Romney says in a new TV ad that features vintage black-and-white photos, including one of a teen-aged Mitt and his square-jawed father, the state’s late governor, George Romney. … Polls indicate that Michigan could go either way, making Romney’s attempt at repositioning himself a particularly acute task in this state, the first in the industrial Midwest to award delegates and a place where a loss could be shattering. … Romney is reverting to the formula that worked earlier this year: He’s going negative against his main opponent and leveling an intense media barrage that the other side hasn’t got the resources to counter." - LA Times
Code: 
Romney says he cares 'very deeply' about auto industry - [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-michigan-goes-after-obama-20120215,0,6543206.story)

"Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, one of the final holdouts of the state’s Republican establishment, will endorse Mitt Romney Thursday." - [WSJ](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/02/15/michigan-gov-snyder-to-endorse-romney/)
Romney targets auto bailout in battle for Michigan - AP
Code: 
 The character of the Chinese government—one that marries aspects of the free market with suppression of freedom—shouldn't become the norm - Mitt Romney for the [WSJ](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204880404577225340763595570.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_carousel_3)
Latest polling shows Santorum with a big lead

“A new Rasmussen survey shows Rick Santorum has jumped to a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney nationally in the race for the GOP presidential nomination. Santorum leads with with 39%, followed by Mitt Romney at 27%, Newt Gingrich at 15% and Ron Paul at 10%. Key finding: “Perhaps more tellingly, Santorum now trounces Romney 55% to 34% in a one-on-one matchup among likely GOP primary voters. This is the first time any challenger has led Romney nationally in a head-to-head match-up.”” - PoliticalWire

Santorum releases four years of tax returns - USA Today
Code: 
Democrats keeping an eye on surging Rick Santorum - [LA Times](http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-democrats-attention-rick-santorum-20120215,0,1203835.story)

Is Romney’s campaign running out of money? - [Hot Air](http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/15/is-romneys-campaign-running-out-of-money/)
Gingrich trying to win delegates in Michigan

““My prediction is that if Mitt Romney goes and attacks Santorum as negatively as he attacked me in Florida and elsewhere, that what you’re going to see is he’ll peel votes off Santorum, but they’re going to come to me, they’re not going to go to Romney,” Gingrich said on the FOX News show, “On The Record.”” - CNN

“The Super PAC promoting Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign is unleashing radio ads Thursday in three key states as well as nationally on popular conservative talk shows.” - WSJ

Sen. Marco Rubio taking an active role in opposing Obama’s diplomatic record

“Sen. Marco Rubio isn’t waiting for a vice presidential offer to go after President Barack Obama: He’s been locked in a quiet battle with the White House for months, blocking key diplomatic appointments in hopes of getting his say on foreign policy. The Rubio-Obama administration skirmish — sloppy, confusing and still largely unresolved — could presage an even bigger, sloppier and more confusing Rubio-Obama political battle this fall.” - Politico

Rep. Allen West: Democratic handouts an 'insidious form of slavery’

“Our party firmly believes in the safety net,” West said in a late Wednesday floor speech. “We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock. “For this reason, the Republican value of minimizing government dependence is particularly beneficial to the poorest among us,” he continued. “Conversely, the Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic freedom.”” - The Hill
 
scipio337 said:
And he was right, I did take (mistakenly) take his post to mean something other than what he meant. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thank you again for the chance to clarify. There is one thing I do believe, if both the candidates and their supporters would engage with more understanding and less emotion, it would result in increased support for the eventual nominee. As before, I am not speaking of you, scipio, but rather trying to point to a general principle.
 
scipio337 said:
Well, I don’t believe him to be the Constitution-shredding despot some Neo Confederates would paint him as.
Click to expand...
The facts say he was a “constitution-shredding despot.” There is nothing “Neo Confederate” about it.

For example, imagine that in 2006 America had a chief justice of the United States who firmly believed in enforcing the Constitution and issued an opinion that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress did not fulfill its constitutional duty in declaring war. Imagine also that the administration and its allies in the media responded with a vicious propaganda campaign that demonized the chief justice as unpatriotic, and possibly even treasonous. Imagine that this media campaign then emboldened the American president who launched the war to issue an arrest warrant for the chief justice, effectively destroying the constitutional seperation of powers and establishing a de facto dictatorship.

This sequence of events actually happened during the early Lincoln administration, as related in Thomas Dilorenzo’s book Lincoln Unmasked. Abraham Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after the 84 year-old jurist issued an opinion that only Congress, and not the president, can legally suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The arrest warrant was never served for lack of a federal marshal with the nerve to drag the elderly chief justice out of his chambers and throw him into the dungeonlike military prison at Fort McHenry in Baltimore.

As to the myth that Lincoln was a champion of the Constitution, Dilorenzo goes on to say that:

“George Orwell himself would blush at this assertion. The only way one could conceivably make this argument is to base the argument exclusively on a few nice things that Lincoln said about the Constitution while generally ignoring his actions. For example, he launched an invasion without the consent of Congress; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political opponents; shut down some three hundred opposition newspapers; censored all telegraph communication; imprisoned a large percentage of the duly elected legislature of Maryland as well as the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; systematically disarmed the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively declared himself a dictator. The gatekeepers try to excuse all of this; but their words ring hollow to anyone familiar with the historical facts.”
 
kubark said:
The facts speak say he was a “constitution-shredding despot.”

For example, imagine that in 2006 America had a chief justice of the United States who firmly believed in enforcing the Constitution and issued an opinion that the war in Iraq was unconstitutional because Congress did not fulfill its constitutional duty in declaring war. Imagine also that the administration and its allies in the media responded with a vicious propaganda campaign that demonized the chief justice as unpatriotic, and possibly even treasonous. Imagine that this media campaign then emboldened the American president who launched the war to issue an arrest warrant for the chief justice, effectively destroying the constitutional seperation of powers and establishing a de facto dictatorship.
Click to expand...
As I’ve pointed out before, Jefferson, Monroe and Adams all took military action without a formal Declaration of War.
40.png
kubark:
This sequence of events actually happened during the early Lincoln administration, as related in Thomas Dilorenzo’s book Lincoln Unmasked. …
Click to expand...
DiLorenzo is the Neo Confederate in chief. That would be like taking Paul Krugman’s writings as the “truth” about Austrian School economics.

DiLorenzo is a historian who is entitled to his opine, but he is in the VAST minority, (and a bit of a revisionists, IMHO).

Oh, you forgot to mention that Lincoln upheld the “all men are created equal” of our Declaration of Independence, which some states weren’t willing to uphold.
 
kubark said:
For example, he launched an invasion without the consent of Congress; illegally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and imprisoned tens of thousands of Northern political opponents; shut down some three hundred opposition newspapers; censored all telegraph communication; imprisoned a large percentage of the duly elected legislature of Maryland as well as the mayor of Baltimore; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; systematically disarmed the border states in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively declared himself a dictator."
Click to expand...
He’s also the Father of the Federal Income Tax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top