Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like a verbal typo. Big deal! 🤷 Rob
I would have ignored it and moved on if that’s all it seemed like. He argued for several minutes that the government cost Americans 30 million jobs because an estimate came out 30 million jobs fewer than originally thought. He was saying that Obama reported that government was going to create 270 million jobs, and then reported that they created/were going to create 240 million instead, and that it meant that Obama has cost use 30 million jobs.

I mean, really…? A verbal typo? The interview was several minutes long, halfway through it I was scratching my head. I’d give him a slip, but you would think a lawyer with any common sense would catch that pretty quick if that’s all it were.

I don’t know whether to laugh at him or cry that he could be the next POTUS.
 
Dem Strategist Attempts to Hurt Romney in Michigan: Get Out There Tomorrow and Vote For Rick Santorum

nation.foxnews.com/mitt-romney/2012/02/27/dem-strategist-attempts-hurt-romney-michigan-get-out-there-tomorrow-and-vote-rick-santorum
Rick Santorum asking Democrats to vote for him in robo-calls (playing right into the Democrats hands)

nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/romney-on-santorum-robocalls-outrageous-and-disgusting–20120228
Santorum Supporters Surprised By Dem-Targeting Robocall

livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/santorum-supporters-surprised-by-dem-targeting-robocall
 
Really? I heard both interviews in full, and apart from his using “throwing up” hyperbole about JFK’s horrible concession, I liked everything he had to say. Esp, the fact that kids go off to college to be indoctrinated and lose their faith. He is exactly the candidate the Washington establishment fears. Bob :cool:
The study showed that those who did not go to college have a higher percentage of people losing their faith. It was about 5-6% higher.
2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/02/studies-refute-santorums-claim-that-attending-college-reduces-religiosity.php?ref=fpnewsfeed
Most non Catholics and even some Catholics would not go for his mixing church and state.
 
I voted for Santorum. I don’t know much about him but he seems like a likeable person.
I think it may take more than that to become president. But the fact that you don’t know much about him might help.
 
See? It is not principled to sponsor legislation you don’t understand. That’s not an error. That’s a corrupt way of thinking all too common in our government.

For decades, we’ve heard this pollyanna argument about picking the lesser of two evils, and where are we? The culture is corrupt. The government steals more liberty each years regardless of who is in power (Bush gave us DHS, another waste of our money and freedom, Obama controls your health). This strategy is a clear failure.

“Compromise” is an interesting word. One definition is that neither side gets what they want and must give up something to reach an agreement in the middle. Well, do this enough and you end up with the second definition of “compromise”. The kind where a vessel or security system is “compromised” and will eventually collapse. And that’s what we have now. Abandon principle once too often and you end up down the tubes.

That lesson is repeated over and over in the Old Testament and echoed in the New. The founders constantly referred to these verses and warned against these dangers. But people don’t want to hear it. You all want to, no have to, believe that one of the parties is really good at the end of the day. The alternative is inconceivable to you because it means you’ve been buying into a lie. Well, that’s the truth. I don’t like it either, but the truth burns.
Nec you’ve laid out a great argument but never addressed the point I was trying to make. It’s fine to rail against having to “vote for the lesser of two evils” but if you have ever voted, and I am sure you have, there are limited options on the ballot. You cannot vote for the perfect candidate whose name never makes it on the ballot.

So if faced with two flawed candidates, one of which is far worse than the other, do you vote for the better of the two? Sit it out? Write in “Mickey Mouse?” If you do the latter it helps ensure that the worse of the two will win.

The problem with standing on principle when the candidates are lacking in same is that we may only have a choice of OK, Bad, or Worst. I’m all for voting for OK and thus hoping “Worst” will be prevented from remaining in office. I’m not one of those purists who insist that my every whim be indulged, my every opinion shared, and my quest for perfection in politics (a fool’s errand) will be successful. Apparently you are holding out for the day Sir Lancelot rides in on his white horse to save the day. Good luck with that plan.

Lisa
 
Nec you’ve laid out a great argument but never addressed the point I was trying to make. It’s fine to rail against having to “vote for the lesser of two evils” but if you have ever voted, and I am sure you have, there are limited options on the ballot. You cannot vote for the perfect candidate whose name never makes it on the ballot.

So if faced with two flawed candidates, one of which is far worse than the other, do you vote for the better of the two? Sit it out? Write in “Mickey Mouse?” If you do the latter it helps ensure that the worse of the two will win.

The problem with standing on principle when the candidates are lacking in same is that we may only have a choice of OK, Bad, or Worst. I’m all for voting for OK and thus hoping “Worst” will be prevented from remaining in office. I’m not one of those purists who insist that my every whim be indulged, my every opinion shared, and my quest for perfection in politics (a fool’s errand) will be successful. Apparently you are holding out for the day Sir Lancelot rides in on his white horse to save the day. Good luck with that plan.
I’m arguing that you’re at best wasting your time. All you’re selecting is the speed at which your culture rots: fast or faster.

And again, you argue that I am looking for a perfect candidate. I just gave one or two examples of how candidates could have flaws and still be okay to support. One was the nature of the flaw (i.e. principle) and the other was if the candidate truly admitted he/she screwed up with no excuses or caveats and a full explanation. That’s not a high bar.

Rather than address these realities, you fall back on what can now be called a straw man argument. No one argued we want perfection. When we explained this to you, you still claim we want perfection. That’s a straw man. It’s a misrepresentation of what we said that is repeated after it has been corrected several times.

The real problem with this country concerns all the issues I mentioned earlier. The two parties are not the solution, but they depend on people like yourself accepting the scraps of false hope offered. Stop accepting the scraps. When you vote, you are freely choosing to put your personal stamp of approval on someone. I have a threshold before I use my free will to endorse someone who will help rot the country. None of these people meet it. If you choose to pledge your support behind Demon A vs Demon B, you’re still voting for a demon.

Christ never asked us to make sacrifices for the greater good. He asks us to seek the truth and not make compromises with principle. Don’t play their reindeer games.

Now, if you truly think one of the candidates is worthy, that’s a different matter and a different argument. But playing the lesser of two evils argument always and I mean always produces one thing: more evil.
 
Christ never asked us to make sacrifices for the greater good. He asks us to seek the truth and not make compromises with principle. Don’t play their reindeer games.

Now, if you truly think one of the candidates is worthy, that’s a different matter and a different argument. But playing the lesser of two evils argument always and I mean always produces one thing: more evil.
Your private interpretation does not match the Church’s teaching regarding voting. Voting for the “lesser evil” is totally acceptable to limit evil. You are also free to abstain from voting or vote for a third party candidate.
 
Your private interpretation does not match the Church’s teaching regarding voting. Voting for the “lesser evil” is totally acceptable to limit evil. You are also free to abstain from voting or** vote for a third party candidate**.
Which has, in this election, the effect of voting for the greater ev il, in practice.
 
BOOOO!! Santorum is slowin’ down against Romney in MI! Come on buddy, you can do it!!
 
BOOOO!! Santorum is slowin’ down against Romney in MI! Come on buddy, you can do it!!
Wait, I thought President Obama was your guy…

Or are you cheering for Sen. Santorum because he’ll be easier for President Obama to defeat than Gov. Romney? Sorry if I’m confused, I may be confusing you with someone else.
 
Chuck Todd:

“Romney won Mackinac County by 1 vote. 667 votes to Santorum’s, wait for it, 666 votes.”

😃

It seems the GOPers in Michigan and Arizona want a candidate who actually has a chance at a national level…such a pity!
 
Wait, I thought President Obama was your guy…

Or are you cheering for Sen. Santorum because he’ll be easier for President Obama to defeat than Gov. Romney? Sorry if I’m confused, I may be confusing you with someone else.
You’re not confused. Ringil is our local Kos or Michael Moore in this regards.
 
You’re not confused. Ringil is our local Kos or Michael Moore in this regards.
I assume you’re talking about Operation Hilarity? That is some dishonest, unethical stuff… It undermines the intent of the primaries, ‘because they can.’ I sure hope no one here supports that.
 
Well, Romney won in both Arizona (no surprise there) and Michigan, though the latter race was close. But did anyone hear the speeches of Romney and Santorum after the primaries? The former sounded even more plastic and artificial than his norm: more of a business proposition, as “what’s his name” on MSNBC called it, with no beauty or vision. Santorum, by comparison, sounded sincere and in touch. Santorum is also not the finest speaker, but against Romney, he sounds like Demosthenes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top