PDA

View Full Version : Iowa Caucus



pghin08
01-03-2012, 11:02 AM
Who takes it tonight? Any thoughts?

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 11:03 AM
Probably Romney.

pghin08
01-03-2012, 12:50 PM
I dunno, I was thinking Romney for a while. But I just have this odd feeling that Paul is going to take it.

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 01:33 PM
He might. Depends on the crossover turnout. About half of Paul's support is from the crossover crowd.

habsheaven
01-03-2012, 01:41 PM
It really doesn't matter. Romney is going to be the nominee, and I am fine with that.

mrveggieman
01-03-2012, 02:26 PM
It really doesn't matter. Romney is going to be the nominee, and I am fine with that.


Romney would be an upgrade over herman cain, newt or any of the other garbage that the republicans have put out there not named ron paul but I still wouldn't vote for him.

habsheaven
01-03-2012, 02:54 PM
Romney would be an upgrade over herman cain, newt or any of the other garbage that the republicans have put out there not named ron paul but I still wouldn't vote for him.

Ron Paul could possibly be the worst-case scenario for the country. He is too much of a risk IMO.

If the economy doesn't get noticeably better this year I think many independants are going to look long and hard at Romney for the simple fact that he may be able to get the government working again and end all the obstructionist activity that is happening to Obama.

It is becoming clear that the House and Congress are holding the People and the Country hostage until they get their way (a Republican president). Only then will they end their childish antics and try to do what is best for the country.

bud7562
01-03-2012, 02:56 PM
there are bunch of liers, thay say one thing and soon thay get in office thay do something eles???? to much greed in the white house.

mrveggieman
01-03-2012, 03:03 PM
Ron Paul could possibly be the worst-case scenario for the country. He is too much of a risk IMO.

If the economy doesn't get noticeably better this year I think many independants are going to look long and hard at Romney for the simple fact that he may be able to get the government working again and end all the obstructionist activity that is happening to Obama.

It is becoming clear that the House and Congress are holding the People and the Country hostage until they get their way (a Republican president). Only then will they end their childish antics and try to do what is best for the country.

That's extortion. They had a republican president for the 8 years prior to President Obama and we all know how well that turned out. :rolleyes: The republicans might as well start charging us "protection" money.

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 03:14 PM
Ron Paul could possibly be the worst-case scenario for the country. He is too much of a risk IMO.

If the economy doesn't get noticeably better this year I think many independants are going to look long and hard at Romney for the simple fact that he may be able to get the government working again and end all the obstructionist activity that is happening to Obama.

It is becoming clear that the House and Congress are holding the People and the Country hostage until they get their way (a Republican president). Only then will they end their childish antics and try to do what is best for the country.

What, exactly, are the Republicans obstructing that you believe is good for the country?

habsheaven
01-03-2012, 03:22 PM
What, exactly, are the Republicans obstructing that you believe is good for the country?

They are obstructing EVERYTHING, whether it be good or bad for the country. All you have to do is listen to what Boehner and Cantor say on a daily basis.

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 05:11 PM
They are obstructing EVERYTHING, whether it be good or bad for the country. All you have to do is listen to what Boehner and Cantor say on a daily basis.

I'll ask it again. What are they specifically obstructing that if passed would be better for the country than if not passed?

habsheaven
01-03-2012, 06:08 PM
I'll ask it again. What are they specifically obstructing that if passed would be better for the country than if not passed?

You can ask it all you want. I will never be able to provide you with an answer because you will never admit anything Obama has proposed is better for the country.

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 06:39 PM
You can ask it all you want. I will never be able to provide you with an answer because you will never admit anything Obama has proposed is better for the country.

I wasn't asking you for my opinion. I was asking you for yours.

habsheaven
01-03-2012, 06:51 PM
I wasn't asking you for my opinion. I was asking you for yours.

My point is; I can list any number of things that I think are good and that the Republicans have blocked. Your response will be to say that those things are not good for the country. Therefore, it is a waste of time to answer the question.

Here, I will prove my point.

1. Stimulus package = GOOD, even bigger Stimulus package = BETTER
2. Universal health care = GOOD
3. Raising debt ceiling = NECESSARY if not GOOD

Now would you like me to write your response?

AUTaxMan
01-03-2012, 10:24 PM
My point is; I can list any number of things that I think are good and that the Republicans have blocked. Your response will be to say that those things are not good for the country. Therefore, it is a waste of time to answer the question.

Here, I will prove my point.

1. Stimulus package = GOOD, even bigger Stimulus package = BETTER
2. Universal health care = GOOD
3. Raising debt ceiling = NECESSARY if not GOOD

Now would you like me to write your response?

none of those were blocked

andrewhoya
01-04-2012, 07:07 AM
Didn't think it would be that close.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 08:45 AM
none of those were blocked

Not directly. But the first two (though Obamacare is not universal healthcare the way Canada/Europe know it) were passed with a Democratic majority in Congress. The debt ceiling issue was fought tooth and nail by the Republicans, which was frankly, reckless. I TOTALLY agree with curtailing spending in certain areas, and we need to tackle the national debt issue, but 2011, with an unemployment rate mostly in the 9% and up range and a struggling recover wasn't the time to shift the national discourse.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 09:39 AM
Not directly. But the first two (though Obamacare is not universal healthcare the way Canada/Europe know it) were passed with a Democratic majority in Congress. The debt ceiling issue was fought tooth and nail by the Republicans, which was frankly, reckless. I TOTALLY agree with curtailing spending in certain areas, and we need to tackle the national debt issue, but 2011, with an unemployment rate mostly in the 9% and up range and a struggling recover wasn't the time to shift the national discourse.

At what point do you stop raising the debt ceiling? It has to end. Otherwise, you are devaluing the dollar.

Either way, we still haven't established what the republicans have prevented from passing by being obstructionists.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 09:53 AM
At what point do you stop raising the debt ceiling? It has to end. Otherwise, you are devaluing the dollar.

Either way, we still haven't established what the republicans have prevented from passing by being obstructionists.

It certainly wasn't in August. They manufactured a crisis. Reckless, no matter how you describe it.

But answer me this (if you can). Bringing the thread somewhat back to the topic, why did Gary Johnson get like, zero Republican support throughout his campaign in 2011? Republicans love to talk a big game about fiscal responsibility (which, in most cases, is a load of crap), but Johnson, when he was Governor of New Mexico, actually did it. He slashed the size of the state government and left New Mexico with a huge budget surplus coming out of the 01-02 recession. Then he pretty much celebrated his accomplishment by climbing Mount Everest. The guy is awesome.

Star_Cards
01-04-2012, 10:01 AM
It certainly wasn't in August. They manufactured a crisis. Reckless, no matter how you describe it.

But answer me this (if you can). Bringing the thread somewhat back to the topic, why did Gary Johnson get like, zero Republican support throughout his campaign in 2011? Republicans love to talk a big game about fiscal responsibility (which, in most cases, is a load of crap), but Johnson, when he was Governor of New Mexico, actually did it. He slashed the size of the state government and left New Mexico with a huge budget surplus coming out of the 01-02 recession. Then he pretty much celebrated his accomplishment by climbing Mount Everest. The guy is awesome.

I agree with your statement about fiscal responsibility. Republicans typically are no more fiscal responsible than any other typical politicians. They just want to spend the money on their own pet projects.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 10:04 AM
It certainly wasn't in August. They manufactured a crisis. Reckless, no matter how you describe it.

But answer me this (if you can). Bringing the thread somewhat back to the topic, why did Gary Johnson get like, zero Republican support throughout his campaign in 2011? Republicans love to talk a big game about fiscal responsibility (which, in most cases, is a load of crap), but Johnson, when he was Governor of New Mexico, actually did it. He slashed the size of the state government and left New Mexico with a huge budget surplus coming out of the 01-02 recession. Then he pretty much celebrated his accomplishment by climbing Mount Everest. The guy is awesome.

Just about all of the republican candidates are fiscal conservatives. Gary Johnson didn't get any traction because he is looked at as a nut, probably because of the pot thing.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 10:10 AM
Just about all of the republican candidates are fiscal conservatives. Gary Johnson didn't get any traction because he is looked at as a nut, probably because of the pot thing.

That's dumb. Johnson says he would "re-evaluate" the war on drugs. Which makes total sense to me. Our prison population is astronomical, thanks in large part to said "war". How legalizing pot makes Gary Johnson a "nut" in the eyes of Republicans shows me exactly illogical some of the Republican base is.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 10:13 AM
That's dumb. Johnson says he would "re-evaluate" the war on drugs. Which makes total sense to me. Our prison population is astronomical, thanks in large part to said "war". How legalizing pot makes Gary Johnson a "nut" in the eyes of Republicans shows me exactly illogical some of the Republican base is.

There are logical arguments to be made for not legalizing it. It's an issue that two reasonable people can genuinely disagree on. I think we should end the drug war.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 10:20 AM
There are logical arguments to be made for not legalizing it. It's an issue that two reasonable people can genuinely disagree on. I think we should end the drug war.

I agree with that totally. But why disregard him over it? Johnson has some major fiscal conservative street cred. Is it because it violates conservative family values? So does Newt Gingrich's entire existence. I just don't get it. If it were Gary Johnson running against Mr. O, I'd pull that lever for Johnson pretty quickly.

AUTaxMan
01-04-2012, 10:27 AM
I agree with that totally. But why disregard him over it? Johnson has some major fiscal conservative street cred. Is it because it violates conservative family values? So does Newt Gingrich's entire existence. I just don't get it. If it were Gary Johnson running against Mr. O, I'd pull that lever for Johnson pretty quickly.

I think the importance of conservative family values spoke pretty loudly last night in Iowa.

pghin08
01-04-2012, 10:57 AM
I think the importance of conservative family values spoke pretty loudly last night in Iowa.

It's Iowa. Of course they did. But several of the players during the Republican campaign this past year had issues with racism and sexual deviance. My point is that when Johnson was still in the Republican hunt, and seemingly ignored for his stance on pot, why were other candidates with legitimate character issues leapfrogging each other for the #1 spot?