28
   

Who do you want to vote for in 2016?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No wonder you have communication problems. You're not even talking about the same subject!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:11 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No wonder you have communication problems. You're not even talking about the same subject! You're an attorney? Mr. Green

0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 01:43 pm
Biden my time.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 02:17 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

It's now the US Conservatives who belong in that group.

They hate freedoms for women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and the 47%.


One of their potential candidates does seem to buck that trend, despite her commitment to balanced budgets and frozen tax rates: Gov. Susana Martinez.

She obviously isn't against women or Hispanics, belonging to both categories. (Some of her views on illegals and abortion will draw fire, but this is a Republican we're talking about, after all, so you can't make the perfect the enemy of the good). It's true that she opposes same-sex marriage, but Obama himself only advocated for it beginning this year, so, again, does it really make sense a Republican would come out in favor?

And as for the 47%, there is this article:

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/09/19/gov-susana-martinez-distances-herself-from-romneys-47-percent-comment/

Quote:
Asked about [Romney's 47%] video at a news conference on prison reform in Albuquerque, Martinez said New Mexico has a lot of people at the poverty level.

"But they count just as much as anybody else," she said.

The state has a strong safety net for those at or below the poverty level, and "that safety net is a good thing," the governor said.


More than her policies or pledges, though, it's her character I like. I give her a 9/10 for character, where I gave Romney a 2. From what I gathered, Romney was some kind of corporate raider with no soul who had probably never had a real friend from the 47% (or the 99% for that matter) and would have been a rubber stamp for Grover Norquist and the Ryan budget. Martinez will always do what she can for us all. You can just tell.

That's who I want to vote for, but it's unlikely the Republicans will nominate her, and I can't vote for her in my state's Republican primary because we have a Republican caucus instead.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 03:22 pm
@Kolyo,
That's not surprising in today's politics. Democrats vote with the conservatives on many issues that seems right-leaning legislation. Women vote in support of legislation that will limit their own freedoms from outside influence.

I don't understand it, but those are the facts.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 03:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Keep up the good work OM. I hope Paul does run for pres in 16.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 06:50 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's now the US Conservatives who belong in that group.


They hate freedoms for women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, and the 47%.
I voted for Barry Goldwater.

Do u question MY conservatism ????

I don 't hate those.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 06:51 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No, just your "consistency."
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 07:04 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Keep up the good work OM. I hope Paul does run for pres in 16.
SO STIPULATED!

The GOP Battle Cry shud not be:
"well, we r not QUITE as hard left as the Democrats."

The idea is to boldly defend personal liberty against collectivism.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 07:07 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
No, just your "consistency."
HOW was I inconsistent ?
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 07:35 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
See? You don't even know why you are inconsistent. If somebody else needs to explain it to you, you will never know.

Go back and reread all of your own posts; you might get a "clue."
OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 07:48 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

See? You don't even know why you are inconsistent.
If somebody else needs to explain it to you, you will never know.

Go back and reread all of your own posts; you might get a "clue."
U r just babbling nonsense.
No one shud take u seriously.
cicerone imposter
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 23 Nov, 2012 08:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Okay, here's your post,
Quote:
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Quote:
Who do you want to vote for in 2016?
Paul Ryan, probably for President.
I 'll need more time qua VP

David
Senator Rand Paul for VP


From SLATE,
Quote:
My friends said I was crazy. They said you weren’t who I thought you were. Paul Krugman said you were a fake fiscal conservative. Scott Lemieux called you a standard-issue right-winger. Jim Surowiecki compared you to Barry Goldwater. I didn’t believe the naysayers. Sometimes they said you were too extreme. Sometimes they said you were a squishy hypocrite for supporting TARP and the auto bailout. It seemed like they just wanted to make you look bad one way or the other. I thought they were just playing politics.
I knew you weren’t perfect. I didn’t like your vote against the Simpson-Bowles debt reduction plan. I worried that your weakness for tax cuts would squander the savings from your budget cuts. But I should have studied your record more carefully. I didn’t understand how pivotal you were in sinking the budget deal between President Obama and Speaker Boehner. I paid too much attention to what you said about cutting the defense budget and not enough attention to what you did. You accused the military of requesting too little money—a concern that makes no sense to anyone familiar with the acquisitive habits of government agencies. You also objected to setting financial savings targets and forcing the Pentagon to meet them, even though that’s how you proposed to control domestic spending.
I tried to stand by you, Paul. I didn’t care that you grabbed federal money for your district. Every congressman does that. I gave you credit, not blame, for supporting TARP. I saw that vote as evidence that you, unlike many of your conservative colleagues, cared more about economic consequences than about making a statement. I winced every time you talked about your hard-line position on abortion, but I told my friends that voting records are misleading, that what a politician chooses to work on is more important, that social issues aren’t your thing, that your real interest is the budget. I even apologized for your dogmatism on climate change. I was willing to believe that you were skeptical of regulation but that you hadn’t really studied the science and that when you did, you’d come around. Jonah Goldberg poked fun at me for sometimes being so open-minded that my brains fall out. And you know what? (Drum roll, please ...) He’s right.
I hate to admit it, but Krugman nailed me on this one. I was looking for Mr. Right—a fact-based, sensible fiscal conservative—and I tried to shoehorn you into that role.
That’s where you let me down, Paul. Since Mitt Romney tapped you as his running mate, you haven’t stood for fiscal restraint. You’ve attacked it. You warned voters in North Carolina and Virginia that cuts in the defense budget would take away their tax-supported jobs. And I cringe when I recall what I said about you and Medicare. “Ryan destroys Romney’s ability to continue making the dishonest, anti-conservative argument that Obamacare is evil because it cuts Medicare,” I wrote. “Now Romney will have to defend the honest conservative argument, which is that Medicare spending should be controlled.”


You agreed that Paul Ryan would be a good president; ergo, you supported his "conservatism." Yes?

Paul Ryan warned voters in NC and VA that cuts in the defense budget would take away their tax-supported jobs.

You want it both ways - like Ryan? LOL

You're a ******* dolt. Anybody except a dumb attorney like you would know that is a contradiction.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 05:56 am
@Kolyo,
I think you'll find that Republican governors of left-leaning states have a lot of cross-party support. Chris Christie, Gary Johnson (also from New Mexico) and Susana Martinez all fit that meme. First, it's important that they demonstrate they can be reelected as Gov. Johnson was, Christie is up for re-election in 2014 and so is Martinez if she runs. She carried her race for gov by nearly 7 pts. I'm not sure if she plans on running for governor again or not. I think it would be a mistake to run for Prez as a one-term governor (that was one of the valid hits against Romney). But, then, any of them would have a hard time surviving the Republican primary process.

I think it's gonna be Jeb.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 06:19 am
@JPB,
edit: Christie is up for reelection in 2013.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 06:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
So David, your assessment is that the Republican party lost the election because it did not adopt a truly Republican stance, and that it should adopt a less centrist approach if it wants to win next time around?

After the Labour landslide in 1997, our Conservative party thought exactly the same, and they were defeated with a similar landslide in 2001. They softened their approach in 2005, but still lost, though not as badly. It wasn't until 2010, under Cameron, who adopted a more centrist approach, that they managed to get back in, and even then they had to enter a coalition with the Lib Dems in order to secure a majority in parliament.

I know this is the UK, not the USA, but our lesson is that elections are won on the centre ground, not the fringes. As such, I would argue that your suggestion will keep the Republicans out of the Whitehouse for a similar period of time.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 08:54 am
@izzythepush,
There's been much talk about the three legs of the Republican stool; the fiscal conservative leg, the social conservative leg, and the libertarian leg. David represents the libertarian leg of the party. Folks like Rick Santorum represent the social conservatives and Romney represented the fiscal (business) conservatives. IMO, the three legs of the party have become separate entities that can no longer sustain the same stool. It will be very interesting to see if they can rally around a single candidate in 2016.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:02 am
@JPB,
I suppose that complicates matters even further. Libertarianism hasn't got much support over here, except for the far right of the Tory party and UKIP. We don't really do God either, the last socially conservative thrust I can think of was John Major's 'back to basics' initiative, that came back to bite him on the arse big time, as the newspapers outed a load of Tory MPs who were cheating on their wives. That just leaves fiscal conservatism.
0 Replies
 
Kolyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2012 03:19 pm
Strangest thing just happened...

With all the talk about Elizabeth Warren giving up her powerful position in the Senate and running for president, you'd think other people like Warren might be getting similar buzz. Not so. Former FDIC chair, Sheila Bair, for example, who fought alongside Warren for home-owners' relief during the whole banking bailout fiasco, is getting no attention at all.

I just googled "Bair 2016", and it turned up nothing.

Personally, I think she'd make a better candidate than Warren, because Warren is seen as being so radical, whereas from what I gather Bair is at about the same spot on the spectrum as Susan Collins. The trick for Bair, would be getting either party to endorse her, but if the Democrats are really so strapped for options that Rahm Emanuel and a guy named "Castro" are listed in Time as viable options, then maybe they'd back her. (Maybe we could see her standing on the podium of the 2016 Democratic Convention and flipping Reagan's 1980 message to the evangelicals on its head: "Now I know that as a life-long Kansas Republican I can't endorse you, but it's great you endorse me." Wink )

I'll have a better idea how much I actually like her after reading Bull by the Horns, but for now let's just get this meme started:

"Sheila Bair 2016"
"Sheila Bair 2016"
"Sheila Bair 2016"
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Dec, 2012 05:37 pm
@Kolyo,
Has there really been talk about Elizabeth Warren running for president?

She hasn't even taken the oath of office for the Senate seat she just won, but I guess that makes little difference in the New Now.

I no longer have any confidence in my ability to predict what the American people are capable of when it comes to elections, but if I have to say that I would be quite pleased to see her run as the Democrat candidate in 2016.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 11:06:56