Republican Presidential Candidate "None of the Above"

Republican Presidential...

Page 4 of 4 • Prev 1 2 3 4

Switch to Forum Live View Republican Presidential Candidate "None of the Above"

1 year ago :: Mar 21, 2012 - 6:04PM #31
AlexanderAC Posts: 517	Mar 16, 2012 -- 12:05PM, Douglas_macneill wrote: Mar 15, 2012 -- 8:52PM, Roodog wrote: I reckon that the winner of the GOP Presidential campaign is Barack Obama. chuckles In other words, the Republican party is likely to emerge from this whole affair with fatal divisions between its conservative evangelical wing (Rick Santorum) and its (relatively) moderate wing (Mitt Romney). And they so asked for it, too. As for me, None of the Above. Much is made of the divisions in the Republican Party, but similar divisions exist in the Democratic Party which aren't apparent because they hold the White House. The GOP is a grand coalition of state rumps, with views as diverse as Long Island iced-tea and a valium Orange County Republicans, to dominionist Carolinans, to born-again Minnesotans, to Cuban-American right-wingers in Florida. Similar the Democratic Party, just as diverse; you will find no different in a country as large and complex as the United States. Reports of the GOP's demise have been greatly exaggerated (just as the reports of a "permanent Republican majority" were in 2003-2004).
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Mar 21, 2012 - 6:08PM #32
AlexanderAC Posts: 517	Mar 16, 2012 -- 12:31PM, Dutch777 wrote: I remember the Republican Party of years ago. It was a respectable, responsible, mainstream --- albeit somewhat conservative --- party of the likes of Dick Lugar, Christie Whitman, Tom Kane and Jake Javits. Over the past generation, it's been co-opted by radical reactionaries. What happened? If I had to draw cartoon animal characters of the current front-runners, Mitt would be a chamelion, Newt a reptile, and Rick an old hound dog (sincerely lovable but smelly and with fleas). Ron Paul would be a fox lurking in the back woods. The Republican Party of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford and Rockefeller is dead, I think. My personal belief is that it was a unique product of American postwar liberalism (in the Sorenson sense... and which I think was a force for good in the world). I do have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul in that I think he does see the route back to a healing process for the American body politic (devolution to the states on social and economic issues). Alex Mar 21, 2012 -- 5:56PM, RJMcElwain wrote: In case anyone is wondering why this thread is still going, it's because, early on in the discussion, it was dealing with, in part, religious issues, which are big with Republicans. Haha, point taken, and I'll stop bombarding this thread with the opinion of someone who can't even vote in a US general election. Alex
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Mar 21, 2012 - 6:11PM #33
RJMcElwain Posts: 2,683	Mar 21, 2012 -- 6:04PM, AlexanderAC wrote: Much is made of the divisions in the Republican Party, but similar divisions exist in the Democratic Party which aren't apparent because they hold the White House. The GOP is a grand coalition of state rumps, with views as diverse as Long Island iced-tea and a valium Orange County Republicans, to dominionist Carolinans, to born-again Minnesotans, to Cuban-American right-wingers in Florida. Similar the Democratic Party, just as diverse; you will find no different in a country as large and complex as the United States. Reports of the GOP's demise have been greatly exaggerated (just as the reports of a "permanent Republican majority" were in 2003-2004). Which is to say, in very clear terms, that neither party really stands for anything in particular. And they both get their campaign funds from the same pockets. That's what "annoys" me the most. Robert J. McElwain "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Supposedly)Thomas Jefferson "He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral." St. Thomas Aquinas One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. Plato
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Mar 25, 2012 - 5:37PM #34
MsTopaz Posts: 334	Mar 21, 2012 -- 6:11PM, RJMcElwain wrote: Mar 21, 2012 -- 6:04PM, AlexanderAC wrote: Much is made of the divisions in the Republican Party, but similar divisions exist in the Democratic Party which aren't apparent because they hold the White House. The GOP is a grand coalition of state rumps, with views as diverse as Long Island iced-tea and a valium Orange County Republicans, to dominionist Carolinans, to born-again Minnesotans, to Cuban-American right-wingers in Florida. Similar the Democratic Party, just as diverse; you will find no different in a country as large and complex as the United States. Reports of the GOP's demise have been greatly exaggerated (just as the reports of a "permanent Republican majority" were in 2003-2004). Which is to say, in very clear terms, that neither party really stands for anything in particular. And they both get their campaign funds from the same pockets. That's what "annoys" me the most. Because of corporate influences, it is tempting to conclude that there are no real differences, but honestly, does anyone think it makes no difference whether Rick Santorum is President of the U.S. vs. Barack Obama? Big differences.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Mar 30, 2012 - 11:26PM #35
Dutch777 Posts: 8,698	*Presidents tend to become fashon setters. If (God forbid) Mitt becomes President, will this "magical Mormon underwear" become de rigueur* ? dekerivers.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/m...** I'll bet those itch and are dreadfully uncomfortable in summer. I've asked those nice, clean-cut Mormon missionaries to show me their longjohns, but none ever would. Hell, I'll show them my Episcopalian Fruit Of The Loom jockey shorts but it's still no-deal. Since Obama is a Progressive, I imagine he prefers something more avant-garde. www.site.abcunderwear.com/googleimages/minee... I'm assuming that Obama actually wears underwear; only Socialists and readers of The Village Voice go without. It's been a long day and time for me to hit the hay. G'night all. Walk Your Own DharmaPath; be awake. The Socratic Standard: Follow the evidence;____ if it doesn't make sense, it's bull$#!+. Dutch
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?