Author Topic: De GOP (it's fukkin politics) (Read 31671 times)

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #30 on:** Oct 06, 2011, 08:40:17 PM »

While Palin's leaving the Alaska governor's office leaves an opportunistic bad taste in my mouth, I understand her reasons for having done so. But Christie knows that he must have a successful run as governor for at least one full term before he attempts a national career in politics.

Granted, he's not my ideal candidate...he tends to be somewhat moderate on all but fiscal matters, and he was pretty hung up on "bipartisanship" in his recent Reagan library speech. But I love the fact that he's no-BS & straight forward.

B E C K · « **Reply #31 on:** Oct 22, 2011, 10:29:12 PM »

Abortion Takes Center Stage at Iowa G.O.P. Forum

Quote

At a forum for Republican presidential hopefuls, Mr. Perry urged party activists to study the abortion positions of his opponents. He offered veiled criticism of Herman Cain, who told an interviewer on CNN last week that he was against abortion, but that the decision to have the procedure was a personal one.

“It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life, but government should stay out of that decision,” Mr. Perry said, drawing enthusiastic applause from a crowd of social conservative voters. “If that is your view, you are not pro-life, you are pro-having your cake and eating it too.”

Jesus, just back off of the abortion thing. How do you have the balls to make that part of your platform in this economy? Rick Perry wants to control the nations' uteruses. Does he even know how creepy that sounds? Considering he's so damn religious, he shouldn't have any problem letting the people who have and do abortions answer to God on their own.

Quote

Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, whose candidacy has been overshadowed by the recent enthusiasm surrounding Mr. Cain, implored voters to carefully consider the records of the Republican candidates. She said that political figures and government had a duty to prevent abortion.

“This is the year when social conservatives can have it all,” Mrs. Bachmann said. “This is our year where we don’t compromise. This is our year when we don’t settle.”

Quiet, you. You're not even a contender.

IDE · « **Reply #32 on:** Oct 22, 2011, 11:37:43 PM »

Why would they back off from abortion? It's perfect for lighting a fire under people's asses.

B E C K · « **Reply #33 on:** Oct 23, 2011, 10:16:59 PM »

Because it's alienating. People that want lightning to strike abortionists and gays, "not comprising", is what got Obama elected. And we have ppl like Herman Cain and Ron Paul who are pro-life but understand it's not a federal issue nor part of the job of the freakin' president. Or at least I think Cain does but he keeps backpedaling:

Quote

In an interview Wednesday with CNN, Cain said he believes life begins at conception. "And abortion under no circumstances," he added. But Cain also said "it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision," according to a CNN transcript.

Asked whether his personal views would become a "directive to the nation," should he become president, Cain said they wouldn't.

"I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation," he said. "The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to social decisions that they need to make."

Cain also seemed contradictory in a recent interview with Fox Business' John Stossel. "My position is that I'm 100% pro-life. Period," he said. When asked whether it followed that a woman could not terminate a pregnancy if she had been raped, he said, "That's her choice. That is not government's choice. I support life from conception." When asked whether that meant abortion should be legal, he said, "No, abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life."

John McCain had a similar, reasonable view of the issue but altered it when it came time to run for president which really bothered me. But once he chose his running mate, his stance on issues became moot anyway.

IDE · « **Reply #34 on:** Oct 24, 2011, 12:44:08 AM »

It's just a platform to show who can be the most intolerant of it.

With this being the primary they should all be preaching about how they're gonna over turn RvW and make sure that all the chicks I'm about to get pregnant carry my spawn to term (even if it means their deaths).

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #35 on:** Oct 24, 2011, 08:34:41 AM »

Abortion is a presidential issue if for no other reason than it informs voters as to what kind of SCOTUS appointees that candidate would make. There's also the bully pulpit aspect of the presidency...giving whatever cause that person wants to advance the most powerful voice inn the world.

gwynn · « **Reply #36 on:** Nov 01, 2011, 10:08:05 AM »

Herman Cain is now the front runner. That's some crazy shit, do repubs really hate Romney that much?
I get that he is a mormon and that he shifts his stances on things depending on which way the wind blows, but he's the guy.
He's the most electable level headed one out there, and they are just desperate to try and find someone better(not Romney).
If they go for Cain, I can see a lot of racists in the party throwing up their hands and just saying "fuck it".
It would make for an interesting election cycle.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #37 on:** Nov 01, 2011, 01:50:54 PM »

If it were between Romney and Obama, I'd stay at home and let the Democrats win. There's no choice when you have so little difference in the parties. I don't trust him any further than I could throw him...at least I know what Obama wants to do. Romney has consistently misrepresented himself for fifteen years.

And that doesn't even touch the Mormon issue. Plus, I think it's more important for voters to have a say in who the nominee is rather than the media and blue blood Republicans.

Cain would be the best option right now, as I feel he's quite electable, likeable, and can appeal to independents and a good many Democrats. As for Republican racists not voting for him, that assumes there are enough to matter, which there is not.

B E C K · « **Reply #38 on:** Nov 01, 2011, 05:49:55 PM »

I wish Ron Paul was the front runner. That'd be an interesting race. Gotta say, I agree with this: Republican field for 2012 is pathetic.

Also, linking this: Blacks reject Cain for good reason & Why Herman Cain Can't Be President. I was reading a lot of CNN yesterday. Which is funny because I generally find them to be kinda shitty.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #39 on:** Nov 01, 2011, 10:53:43 PM »

It basically boils down to "he's not black enough" and what I said earlier about the everyone from the traditional media, the Democrat party, and the moderate wing of the Republican party trying to force Romney down everyone else's throat. The man has more flip flops than Imelda Marcos and John Kerry combined.

gwynn · « **Reply #40 on:** Nov 12, 2011, 02:32:31 PM »

How about that Herman Cain, huh?
Wow, I have never seen such overt misogyny used by a political candidate for the presidency.
If there is any woman out there listening to him and his lawyer, they should "think twice" about voting for him, or they might be just insane.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/11/rachel-maddow-herman-cain-lin-wood_n_1087997.html

IDE · « **Reply #41 on:** Nov 12, 2011, 04:24:52 PM »

I don't like cain.

I haven't been paying attention though.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #42 on:** Nov 12, 2011, 05:26:07 PM »

The sexual harassment thing with Cain is fishy from the start. All of them are related to workplace harassment while he was head of the National Restaurant Association...but most if not all these incidents were alleged to have occurred in Chicago, and he never worked there during that time. And some of these accusers have some heavy hitting political connections that cast the shadow of doubt.

In any case, I take that statement to mean that Cain's lawyer is putting people on notice that they're probably going to pursue legal action if they continue to make unsubstantiated claims. And I agree with that...they should either file suit or STFU.

gwynn · « **Reply #43 on:** Nov 12, 2011, 06:40:51 PM »

If you're talking about that one lady being the mom of somebody from Politico, that was false. A blatant lie by Cain's campaign manager.
Or he's just an idiot that thinks anybody with the same last name is related without researching it further.

All they are trying to do is intimidate and drag these women's names through the mud. They aren't the ones who broke the confidentiality agreement, Cain is.
They are doing us a service, showing Cain's true colours. I don't care to have such a rampant misogynist in any kind of political office. Calling Pelosi "Princess".
He doesn't even care that he's alienating women. I hope he does get the nomination now, because I would LOVE to see him turned into street pizza on election day.

Rodent of Unusual Size · « **Reply #44 on:** Nov 13, 2011, 12:08:07 AM »

I'm talking in general. I believe there's five of them, and they're all from Chicago. Based on how Obama won his senatorial race after people dug up and released marital issues of both his primary and general opponents, this raises suspicion even without Cain never having worked there while in the NRA.

Plus, you're assuming the allegations are not total bullshit to start with. Anyone can hire a lawyer to hold a press conference to announce someone committed sexual harassment, but not enough to go to a judge for. That's what's going on here. And I don't believe anyone should make public accusations anonymously. If true, it's little more than revenge, not justice. If false, it's slander.

As for Speaker Legosi, the only thing I wish people would quit calling her is "Speaker". Well, that, and "Representative".

B E C K · « **Reply #45 on:** Nov 13, 2011, 01:05:44 AM »

In these situations I never go by whether or not the accusation may be true or not and look to how they handle it. I don't think Cain's handling this as well as he could in my opinion. Also, semi-related, he could stand to be less brusque. I see people who know nothing about him just see him say a few lines on tv and get immediately turned off.

gwynn · « **Reply #46 on:** Nov 13, 2011, 01:24:58 AM »

Quote from: Rodent of Unusual Size on Nov 13, 2011, 12:08:07 AM

And I don't believe anyone should make public accusations anonymously.

They were under a nondisclosure agreement. They didn't make the accusations. Cain's own republican rivals dug up this mess. Then when it got brought up the media dug into it and pushed more and Cain wavered on the issue which caused it to get worse and worse, and he talked so much about it, he broke the agreement which forced some of these women out to try and set the record straight. They were not anonymous, they were paid to keep their mouths shut. Paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. You don't think THAT is suspicious? But because it happened in Chicago you have to point it toward Obama. Obama had nothing to do with this. It is all about Cain, and the way he subjugates women, and the way the republicans discredit them by insulting...not their claim but the women themselves. The republicans defense is to ATTACK. Lash out and try to confuse people but not talk about the REAL issues. It's not going to work this time.

IDE · « **Reply #47 on:** Nov 13, 2011, 01:46:02 AM »

While I am usually all for subjugating women this time around I find myself rooting for them against their republican oppressors.

IDE · « **Reply #48 on:** Nov 14, 2011, 10:23:04 PM »

Look at this idiot flounder around trying to answer the question.

A question even I can answer (someone who hardly pays attention at all) just from listening to NPR on the way to work.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/14/herman-cain-libya-question_n_1093425.html

B E C K · « **Reply #49 on:** Nov 14, 2011, 10:45:52 PM »

All of those pizzas zapped out his brain. Can't wait to see the SNL take on this. They have to do it.

The D · « **Reply #50 on:** Nov 21, 2011, 08:01:26 PM »

My opinion on Cain's tax plan is NEIN-NEIN-NEIN.

B E C K · « **Reply #51 on:** Dec 27, 2011, 01:19:40 PM »

It hilarious how this race has gone. Palin 2.0 was the "front runner", then Perry surged in, and then Cain. Now Cain's gone, Bachman's a non-factor, and Perry is struggling with his head above water. While Ron Paul looks to be the next flavor of the month, December was all about The Gingrinch That Stole Christmas's rise and now fall. WHAT THE FUCK? NEWT GINGRINCH? The GOP is such a fuckin' joke. I don't even... HAHAHA...

Newt Gingrich endorsed by adultery dating site Ashley Madison

And then the dumbass misses the Virginia ballot deadline. AND HE LIVES THERE. Then he decides it's not his fault, it's the system keeping him down and compares this situation to Pearl Harbor. What a yutz. And, no, he can't be a write-in candidate either. So no one in VA can vote for him in their primary even though he has good poll numbers there.

You know, while I don't hate Obama, I was open to new leadership. But this is a panel a clowns. Ron Paul is the only interesting one but I don't see the rest of the circus backing him up here.

IDE · « **Reply #52 on:** Dec 27, 2011, 01:26:27 PM »

I'm not sure I like Ron Pauls super deregulation ideas. From what I understand dereg played a big part in the mess we're in now economically. The government has to be enough of a bully to the corporate machine to prevent them from fucking us over.

But man do I LOVE his immigration policies and cutting aid to foreign nations policies.

B E C K · « **Reply #53 on:** Jan 03, 2012, 12:32:34 AM »

IOWA today.

B E C K · « **Reply #54 on:** Jan 12, 2012, 11:39:11 PM »

Mittens takes Iowa and NH and Santorum is the GOPs new love-foundling. Jeez Louise. Why didn't they just make a billboard that said "Vote Obama" and save themselves millions of dollars? Even Newt told the gays "derp, vote Obamer".

The D · « **Reply #55 on:** Jan 16, 2012, 07:42:49 PM »

It's going to be Romney vs Obama, for sure. Unless they find crotch shots on Romney's twitter feed.

He's not the craziest of the bunch, but I think I may have preferred Huntsman or MAYBE Paul instead of him. Paul has me agreeing with him some of the time but I can't agree with his extremist Libertarian views of shrinking the US government down to a powerless nothing, his non-belief of climate change, his pro-life stand, and his questionable record towards civil rights, not to mention his supposedly racist remarks in that magazine he once published.

B E C K · « **Reply #56 on:** Jan 18, 2012, 01:01:52 AM »

He's pro-life but believes the law should be made on the state level instead of the federal one. I kinda disagree but it's a far more reasonable view than some of the other candidates imo.

Whackjob Bachman's out. Huntsman dropped out and immediately backed Romney. Wow, waste of time and money. Kinda. Sorry to see him go. Kinda wanted Perry and Gingrich to leave before he did. Glad Paul's in it until the end. See your shit through or don't even try, I say. (Unless you run out of money and don't have any alternative.)

Sam · « **Reply #57 on:** Jan 19, 2012, 09:30:41 AM »

I like Paul. Especially when I remember that, if a miracle happens and he is elected, he'll neccesarily have to back down from some of his extreme views and there's no way others will have any effect because the president doesn't have unrestrained powers. Point is, on the things that he would control, like a lot of the foreign policy stuff, I like him. On the other things, he'd at least be a push in the right direction.

IDE · « **Reply #58 on:** Jan 19, 2012, 03:11:57 PM »

I like Ron Paul, and so does the 20 yr old that spent the last 2 days in bed with me.

B E C K · « **Reply #59 on:** Jan 19, 2012, 05:48:58 PM »

Quote from: IDE on Jan 19, 2012, 03:11:57 PM

I like Ron Paul, and so does the 20 yr old that spent the last 2 days in bed with him.

^ How I read that.