- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Help a brother out
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:30 am
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:30 am
I never thought this would happen....I never thought that the GOP could find a candidate who wouldn't make anyone with a brain between their ears and less than $10 million in the bank gag over the rhetoric that spews forth from their mouth....But dammit I keep finding myself strangely attracted to a GOP senator from Kentucky. I won't mention his name because Is can't hardly admit it to myself....but I think (shudder) if the election were today and it was this Kentucky senator and Hillary Clinton I would vote for the republican...there, I said it.
Why? Because Clinton is nothing more than a reiteration of all the other neocons who have preceded her.....and that is what we have sent to the whitehouse since Reagan. If Clinton is elected we will have boots on the ground in the Middle East in 2 years if not sooner and I think this is a mistake....I think the Middle East is going to have to have a bloodbath among itself for the people there to realize that the whole 70 virgins thing ain't worth seeing their kids blown up in the street. If we continue to intervene, as we will with any of the neocons either party runs, that eventuality will merely be put off.
The truly interesting thing about Paul is that he will have to find support from some quarter if elected. That support is not going to come easily from the far right...nor from the far left...so the middle is the only option. I think Paul would represent a quasi coalition government in the US...Hillary merely continues the same rift that started when W was elected and continues to worsen every day.
Dam the GOP...this has always been an easy decision for me....the GOP has always settled on a candidate who was very easy for me, a working class white man from the south without the associated racial baggage to carry, to vote against. Now y'all have gone and made me think...that is a terrible thing to ask of anyone. I don't think come November of 16 it will be a problem....I don't think y'all will allow Paul to be the nominee.....but if it does happen....dammit all....
Why? Because Clinton is nothing more than a reiteration of all the other neocons who have preceded her.....and that is what we have sent to the whitehouse since Reagan. If Clinton is elected we will have boots on the ground in the Middle East in 2 years if not sooner and I think this is a mistake....I think the Middle East is going to have to have a bloodbath among itself for the people there to realize that the whole 70 virgins thing ain't worth seeing their kids blown up in the street. If we continue to intervene, as we will with any of the neocons either party runs, that eventuality will merely be put off.
The truly interesting thing about Paul is that he will have to find support from some quarter if elected. That support is not going to come easily from the far right...nor from the far left...so the middle is the only option. I think Paul would represent a quasi coalition government in the US...Hillary merely continues the same rift that started when W was elected and continues to worsen every day.
Dam the GOP...this has always been an easy decision for me....the GOP has always settled on a candidate who was very easy for me, a working class white man from the south without the associated racial baggage to carry, to vote against. Now y'all have gone and made me think...that is a terrible thing to ask of anyone. I don't think come November of 16 it will be a problem....I don't think y'all will allow Paul to be the nominee.....but if it does happen....dammit all....
7
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:50 am to germandawg
What about Warren versus Paul? Is that easier or harder for you to vote Republican?
What about Warren versus Romney?
What about Warren versus Romney?
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:51 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
What about Warren versus Romney?
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:54 am to germandawg
Props for realizing Hillary is a neocon. She would be such an awful president.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 9:56 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
I'm just speaking in hypos - while I'd much rather have Romeny as POTUS right now than Obama, I'm hopeful the stink of Gruber gets on him and makes him go away, too.
Warren will likely run against Obamacare - I would assume we'll see her position on that soon enough - but she will advocate it as the "least bad" option at the time and push for single payer - that has been the progressive gameplan all along, so might as well start that now as Obamacare seems doomed at the moment.
So, everyone except Romney will run against Obamacare - and the Dems will call it Romneycare (heck, they did it in 2012), not without some small grain of truth to the slur.
This post was edited on 11/15/14 at 9:57 am
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:00 am to germandawg
The Republicans haven't run an intellectually curious person in a generation, and the Democrats haven't since at least Clinton. For the most part, we have had a procession of dullards. Now I like Bush as a leader, and he had excellent instincts and strong character, but he didn't "think" like Paul. I agree he's attractive to people from various coalitions because you sense that he is an original thinker.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:05 am to Lsupimp
Paul and Cruz are the most ideologically driven guys in the party right now. The argument would have been 'they're not experienced enough to be President right now.' Well, Obama took care of that argument. A community organizer who just voted 'present' in his short stint in Congress.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:06 am to Ace Midnight
Warren vs Paul would definitely be a tough choice for me.....but i think as progressive as Warren is she would have to shift to the right and would essentially be another Bush, Clinton or Obama. I really think that Paul may actually be a different animal...subtly, but some how willing to say things that make people from all sides equally comfortable and uncomfortable.
There is no question between Romney and Warren. If I am resented with what would essentially be a continuation of the Obama presidency and one of the Bush presidency I am going with Obama every time.
There is no question between Romney and Warren. If I am resented with what would essentially be a continuation of the Obama presidency and one of the Bush presidency I am going with Obama every time.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:11 am to germandawg
You aren't fooling anybody bro. You are a Fundamentalist Liberal, so enveloped by the rigid orthodoxies of Liberalism that you have lost the capacity for clarity. If the Dems ran a convicted pederast, you'd be telling us why that's an essential characteristic for leadership.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:13 am to germandawg
quote:
There is no question between Romney and Warren. If I am resented with what would essentially be a continuation of the Obama presidency and one of the Bush presidency I am going with Obama every time.
That's all I need to know - you're a far left, progressive who is disenchanted with the Clinton machine. I respect that. I couldn't vote for a Democrat because the Republicans run yet another RINO whose turn it is - I just hold my nose and vote for the least bad option.
Your emotional draw to Paul is intriguing to me, but not for a leftist - I assumed he would be a draw for more moderate democrats who would balk at voting for a bleeding red Marxist like Fauxchahontas and is just turned off by the pinko Socialist HRC. Bill Clinton is pretty far to the left of me, and he's way right of either of those gals.
Paul is about as "moderate" (if such a thing exists) as a Republican can be and still stand for anything at all.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:15 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Help a brother out The Republicans haven't run an intellectually curious person in a generation, and the Democrats haven't since at least Clinton. For the most part, we have had a procession of dullards. Now I like Bush as a leader, and he had excellent instincts and strong character, but he didn't "think" like Paul. I agree he's attractive to people from various coalitions because you sense that he is an original thinker.
Paul May also be the GOPs answer to attracting people other than white men. I don't know how his message will resonate with women (not well I would imagine given the traditional female adversity to risk) but his stand on drugs, prison sentences and foreign policy I think rings loud and true with young people and minorities. This could be a major problem for the Dems going forward. It don't think the GOP will do it but it could well mean a return to the days when there were moderates in both parties in election years and not just moderates after they get elected.....
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:27 am to Lsupimp
quote:
Help a brother out You aren't fooling anybody bro. You are a Fundamentalist Liberal, so enveloped by the rigid orthodoxies of Liberalism that you have lost the capacity for clarity. If the Dems ran a convicted pederast, you'd be telling us why that's an essential characteristic for leadership.
Not trying to fool anyone. I am about as progressive as person can be from my background (white, southern, blue collar). I make no bones about being a social liberal....as liberal as a person can get, socially...and a fiscal conservative....I think taxes are too high and spending is too high.....but if you aren't going to do the hardwork of cutting both there is no point in cutting either....we have been cutting the one and increasing the other to stem the blood flow since at least the early 60's...it ain't sustainable....and, by the way, it ain't a conservative idea, no matter how badly y'all want to claim Reagan and Bush 1 and 2 were conservatives the fact is that they were tax cutting big spenders just like all other presidents since at least Kennedy...and that is not fiscal conservatism....it is an unsustainable system akin to living on credit cards and planning to someday earn enough to pay them off..usually ends badly.
But of course this attitude that you have taken is similar to that employed by "revolutionists" throughout time....if you ain't ideologically pure (as if there is such a thing) there is no place at the table for you. If Paul takes this stand he has 0 chance of being nominated...let alone defeating Clinton. This perception of the world is why we have such a rift in politics today...politicians see exploiting this rift as an easy way to get elected...and people like yourself fuel that fire.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:30 am to germandawg
quote:
Paul May also be the GOPs answer to attracting people other than white men.
This is another aspect of the Paul candidacy that is intriguing - if you think back to the 3 Dem presidents prior to WJC (other than JFK - that was straight cult of personality) - Truman (non-nonsense, straight talker, from Missouri - fell into the job after FDR's death), LBJ (political animal, from Texas, fell into the job after JFK's death), and Carter (from Georgia, fell into the job in the aftermath of Watergate) - and Reagan was able to bring a bunch of disenchanted southern white democrats over - with a message of fiscal conservatism, strong national defense and capitalism as a rising tide to lift all boats.
If Paul can do that with minority voters in any appreciable way - and the message is clear - "Y'all have been voting straight democrat, 95% of the time for 50 years - how's that working out?" - could be revolutionary. He's one of the first to come and explain why the Republican solutions will work for everyone AND take issues with some unpopular Republican platform items...and the first to do so in an apparently (it's early) effective way.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:37 am to NC_Tigah
With call this Gruber stuff coming out, no way Romney runs again.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:40 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
. He's one of the first to come and explain why the Republican solutions will work for everyone AND take issues with some unpopular Republican platform items...and the first to do so in an apparently (it's early) effective way
I don't think they are "republican solutions".....I think they are truly fiscal conservative solutions. The GOP can't lay claim to being fiscally conservative, at least not in its modern (since Eisenhower) model. Republican solutions since the early 60s have mirrored those of Democrats....cut taxes and increase spending. I don't hear this same message coming from the Ryan side...yet. He will probably go that route after being elected if he gets that far but I think his social stand will be much more palpable than any other GOP candidate and there is the chance that his foreign policy will catch on. If he doesn't cut taxes and increase spending the people of this nation are going to crucify him...no matter what the letter is after his name. We have grown accustomed to low federal taxes and pork barrel spending....a double edged sword that is going to be difficult for anyone to get rid of.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:43 am to germandawg
IMO Paul will make a great president. However it's going to be very difficult for him to make it through the primaries. I believe his only chance is with a very crowded field where the establitarians split the vote.
He'll run away with the general election if he makes it through the primaries. He could even win California. Imagine that for a GOP candidate.
He'll run away with the general election if he makes it through the primaries. He could even win California. Imagine that for a GOP candidate.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:43 am to germandawg
When the reality hits you that a utopian society where everyone is equal is not possible, freedom is the obvious choice.
Posted on 11/15/14 at 10:56 am to germandawg
quote:
I don't think they are "republican solutions".....I think they are truly fiscal conservative solutions.
Fair enough and I'm not going to quibble when you're not talking crazy.
quote:
The GOP can't lay claim to being fiscally conservative, at least not in its modern (since Eisenhower) model.
Relatively speaking, they can, but I understand and don't completely dismiss your argument.
quote:
Republican solutions since the early 60s have mirrored those of Democrats....cut taxes and increase spending.
Other than Kennedy (who would be a supply side, moderate Republican from NH, today) - which Democrat has proposed tax cuts and spending reductions? Carter and Clinton reduced defense spending - only - and Clinton relented to some welfare reform. In both cases, they spent most, if not all the savings on other entitlement programs.
Every Republican effort to reduce spending on entitlements or reforming the tax code is met with vitriol, race baiting, class warfare or worse - although, at core, you're generally correct - Republicans are just as profligate spenders as Democrats - my issue is - at least spending on defense is a constitutional function.
There is no anticipation in the constitution for the act of robbing Taxpayer A to pay for Taxpayer B's lifestyle - none, zero, zilch.
quote:
If he doesn't cut taxes and increase spending the people of this nation are going to crucify him...no matter what the letter is after his name.
Maybe so - and maybe the right should pipe down about tax cuts (although tax rate cuts have a net positive effect on revenues down the line) - but the problem is that promised spending cuts never materialize - they only exist in theory - while the Dems tax increases occur immediately, have nearly immediate effects and ultimately reduce receipts over time.
Will you at least concede in a year of record receipts, yet still spending deficits that we should, perhaps, freeze taxes for 3 years, and reduce spending on however aggressive a path to get to near balance, then revisit? I mean, with record receipts, we obviously don't have a taxation problem, we have a spending problem and perhaps a tax structure problem - let's get spending under control, THEN address the tax structure?
Can we, as reasonable people, start there?
Posted on 11/15/14 at 11:16 am to germandawg
That was a really, really long way to say that in the end, you are going to vote for the Democrat, come hell or high water. Again, you ain't fooling anyone. Not personal bro, just calling a spade a spade.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:32 am to germandawg
quote:
"This is an incredibly contagious disease," Paul said. "People in full gloves and gowns are getting it. So really they need to be honest — this is a very transmissible disease."
Paul added: "They’re still learning about this. We’re all still learning about this. But this is not something that is hard to catch, this is something that appears to be very easy to catch."
He's apparently not even that good of an MD
LINK /
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News