Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
75 Posts
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: If the "other guy" wins how disappointed will you be? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chapel
United States
Round Rock
Texas
flag msg tools
Exit...pursued by a bear.
mbmbmbmbmb
If Romney wins over Obama, I'll only be slightly...er, slighted.

Now if Santorum wins, then I know I just woke up in...

11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sean Chick (Formerly Paul O'Sullivan)
United States
New Orleans
Louisiana
flag msg tools
designer
Fag an bealac! Riam nar druid ar sbarin lann! Erin go Bragh! Remember Ireland and Fontenoy!
badge
Well, I'm afraid it'll have to wait. Whatever it was, I'm sure it was better than my plan to get out of this by pretending to be mad. I mean, who would have noticed another madman round here?
mbmbmbmbmb
bramadan wrote:
Obama turned to be considerably less bad then what I imagined (not good mind you - but not actively bad either). I would kind of like Romney to win because I would like moderate business-first-social nutbar issues-distant second faction to become dominant in Republican party.


I think they always have been "business-first" and still are. The social issues are just the means to the end. For instance, George W. Bush talked a good game in 2004 about gay marriage, but in 2005 he was hell bent on raiding social security. Gingrich used cultural issues in the 1990s to frame the debate, but he spent most his time fighting for the business interests and against welfare. The later can also be conveniently tied up in social issues, which makes for a tidy package.

On the local level the social conservatives can be effective in terms of policy, but the GOP knows the money donors are more important and well informed than the social crusaders, so they can afford to let the latter off with rhetoric.

Quote:
On the other hand, Santorum is political devil incarnate as far as I am concerned. I think I'd sooner vote for Hugo Chavez then I would for that guy. Growing state to restrict economic liberties is really bad - but growing state to restrict *personal* liberties is even worse.


I am not too afraid of the morality police. As the memory of the 60s fades and the triumph of license continues, the social conservatives will shrink into a pointless minority. I remember the culture wars, and while the crusaders used it to get elected they failed to stop abortion, violence in video games, remove Clinton, and a host of other things. The drugs won the drug war and our culture is possibly more overtly sexualized than ever. Why they lost is multifaceted but I'd say wedding themselves to the more aggressively capitalist party, when companies know sex and pleasure sells, was a major reason. It is like chasing your own tail. They lost their war, but like the Soviets, they have not yet folded.

Quote:
If Republican party actually goes that crazy as to elect him as their candidate then it needs to split into two and sooner the better.


While a split is not in the works, the Republican Party has never in my still short life-time looked this divided. Usually the anointed one sails to victory. Perhaps the rhetoric of personal liberty at long last cannot be reconciled with social restrictions. You can see it in the Tea Party, which went from a kind of vague libertarianism, to your basic social conservatism. Parties take their biggest hits when the contradictions can no longer be contained. I'm still mulling this over and I'll write something up when I have the time, but the GOP's long term future is starting to look bleak. Not Republicans after 1932 bleak, but bleak all the same.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
mightygodking wrote:
Darilian wrote:
Suffice it to say, despite my ideological differences with Santorum on many issues- which I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed- I do admire the fact that he is a rare breed of candidate who more or less is what he says he is. He is what he is.


I don't see how this is admirable in the slightest. Conviction is not a positive character trait in and of itself. "Say what you will about National Socialism, at least it's an ethos" was intended to be satire.

Quote:
Obama, on the other hand, is not what he wants to be- and some of this I think is through no personal fault of his own. His lackings are not moral- I don't think that Obama is a bad man. I think that he isn't necessarily very 'good' at this job, but on the other hand, I think that he has at least TRIED to do what he promised. When he hasn't delivered, it isn't because he has lied or misled the American people as to what he has intended to do. He is not what he is.


And you're creating a weird sort of equivalency here, because Obama has been, for the most part, fairly consistent on attempting to do with what he said he wanted to attempt to do. (The exceptions here are foreign detainee civil rights, where he has been a disappointment, and medical marijuana, where he has done an outright 180.) You're comparing Obama's track record at getting legislation passed in a hostile environment to Santorum's willingness to admit that he believes horrible insane things. How on earth does that make any sense?


Weird form of equivalency?

No- I'm not.

Here's the short version.

Romney-
I'm going to pass a health care reform package in Mass. with an individual mandate. (Governor)
I'm going to destroy ObamaCare, because it has an individual mandate. (Candidate)

Obama-
I'm going to close Gitmo. (Candidate)
I still really want to close Gitmo, but I haven't been able to due to circumstances. (President).

I might think he may or may not be disingenuous about the 'circumstances' that prevent him closing Gitmo. Is it the political cost to his Presidency or the National Security cost to the Nation? These are questions of his ability to serve as president.

However, I think his integrity is still more or less honorable because his declared intentions on the issue haven't changed.

There's a difference.

Darilian
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tim Thorp
United States
Granite Falls
Washington
flag msg tools
"Come on! Come on! Come and get it, baby! Come on! I don't got all day! Come on! Come on! Come on you bastard! Come on, you too! Oh, you want some of this? "
mbmbmbmbmb
MWChapel wrote:
If Romney wins over Obama, I'll only be slightly...er, slighted.

Now if Santorum wins, then I know I just woke up in...



me not offended; me report this to Admins!
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Weird form of equivalency?

No- I'm not.

Here's the short version.

Romney-
I'm going to pass a health care reform package in Mass. with an individual mandate. (Governor)
I'm going to destroy ObamaCare, because it has an individual mandate. (Candidate)

Obama-
I'm going to close Gitmo. (Candidate)
I still really want to close Gitmo, but I haven't been able to due to circumstances. (President).


I understand the Romney/Obama comparison. My complaint was with the Santorum/Obama comparison.

Quote:
I might think he may or may not be disingenuous about the 'circumstances' that prevent him closing Gitmo. Is it the political cost to his Presidency or the National Security cost to the Nation? These are questions of his ability to serve as president.


Except that by calling it "his ability," you're overlooking the entire existence of the legislative branch and its peccadilloes. President != king.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bojan Ramadanovic
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
mightygodking wrote:
Darilian wrote:
Suffice it to say, despite my ideological differences with Santorum on many issues- which I don't think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed- I do admire the fact that he is a rare breed of candidate who more or less is what he says he is. He is what he is.


I don't see how this is admirable in the slightest. Conviction is not a positive character trait in and of itself. "Say what you will about National Socialism, at least it's an ethos" was intended to be satire.

Quote:
Obama, on the other hand, is not what he wants to be- and some of this I think is through no personal fault of his own. His lackings are not moral- I don't think that Obama is a bad man. I think that he isn't necessarily very 'good' at this job, but on the other hand, I think that he has at least TRIED to do what he promised. When he hasn't delivered, it isn't because he has lied or misled the American people as to what he has intended to do. He is not what he is.


And you're creating a weird sort of equivalency here, because Obama has been, for the most part, fairly consistent on attempting to do with what he said he wanted to attempt to do. (The exceptions here are foreign detainee civil rights, where he has been a disappointment, and medical marijuana, where he has done an outright 180.) You're comparing Obama's track record at getting legislation passed in a hostile environment to Santorum's willingness to admit that he believes horrible insane things. How on earth does that make any sense?


Weird form of equivalency?

No- I'm not.

Here's the short version.

Romney-
I'm going to pass a health care reform package in Mass. with an individual mandate. (Governor)
I'm going to destroy ObamaCare, because it has an individual mandate. (Candidate)

Obama-
I'm going to close Gitmo. (Candidate)
I still really want to close Gitmo, but I haven't been able to due to circumstances. (President).

I might think he may or may not be disingenuous about the 'circumstances' that prevent him closing Gitmo. Is it the political cost to his Presidency or the National Security cost to the Nation? These are questions of his ability to serve as president.

However, I think his integrity is still more or less honorable because his declared intentions on the issue haven't changed.

There's a difference.

Darilian


How does any of that make a fellow who would (aside from a few theological quibbles) fit right into Guardian Council of Iran a suitable president of the United States.

There are lot of self-consistent madmen out there - is any of them better president material then folks who try and make best of bad situation and divided electorate ?
8 
 Thumb up
0.13
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J
United States
Hawaii
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:

I might think he may or may not be disingenuous about the 'circumstances' that prevent him closing Gitmo...

However, I think his integrity is still more or less honorable because his declared intentions on the issue haven't changed.

Really?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
Well, Huckabee isn't running, or I'd have supported him over Santorum.

It's not a question of 'all those other possible candidates' who could be better. Rather, its a case of who we've got. I've already done my bit and spent money to support a couple of other people. They lost.

1). I don't think Santorum could impose a severe roll back of civil liberties, even if he wanted to- not through a divided Congress and reasonably divided GOP.

2). I think that the extent to which that Santorum would even WANT to create a legislative agenda that will roll back the social clock has been reasonably overstated. More to the point, that's not what's going to get him elected, or will keep him power. Its the economy, stupid, to quote my favorite talking head. That is where he will succeed or not.

Santorum's positions on many issues that are important to me are...interesting. I don't necessarily agree with them in toto, but I think he's got some good ideas that are not more of the same that I've seen in GOP candidates. On the economy, he has one or two interesting things to say on the issue- especially the idea of a reduced Corporate tax for companies that are heavily involved in manufacturing in the US. His policies on Immigration are a refreshing change from the Nativism of many, focusing upon securing the border but also allowing for normalizing guest worker status for many. His take on how to fix our failing schools I think is the correct one- realize that its not a Federal issue to 'solve', but rather one where the Federal Government can help State and local governments, but more importantly parents

I guess I have a bit more faith in the checks and balances of the Federal Government to reign in the 'excesses' of a candidate. The world didn't end for the Republicans when Obama came to power, it won't end for the Democrats if Santorum came to power.

Hofstadter was wrong in one key element- Paranoia exists in American politics, to be sure, but its not exclusively that of the Right. Whenever a faction begins to feel threatened, paranoia and suspicion of the motives of the other side runs full course.

Darilian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bojan Ramadanovic
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
On the economy, he has one or two interesting things to say on the issue- especially the idea of a reduced Corporate tax for companies that are heavily involved in manufacturing in the US.


So in addition to being Iranian on social issues he is French on economic issues. How far behind are "national champions" and direct manufacturing subsidies.

Micromanaging tax code to pervert economic incentives in order to create outcomes that are politically appealing is not an "interesting idea" it is a tried and true path to economic stagnation and (even larger) lobbying bloat. ("Clearly Mr. President manufacturing widgets in the US deserves greater tax subsidy then manufacturing gadgets...")
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
jarredscott78 wrote:
Darilian wrote:

I might think he may or may not be disingenuous about the 'circumstances' that prevent him closing Gitmo...

However, I think his integrity is still more or less honorable because his declared intentions on the issue haven't changed.

Really?


Compared to Romney, sure- I think Obama has more integrity on some of these key issues that he claimed to be of core importance to him.

Compared to Santorum, not so much. Santorum has always been consistent on issues that he feels are of the utmost importance to him.

Compared to what I'd like, Obama has lived up to what I expected, plus a bit more. So I'm willing to give him the chance to make his case.

But Romney? *please* I've been following him avidly for months now, and I just can't stand him. The last straw has been watching him twist in the wind over abortion. He declared that he supported the Mississippi 'personhood' amendment, which would give 14th Amendment protections back in 2007. THEN, he changes his mind and decides that a 14th Amendent solution would
Quote:
That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it's reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That's not something I would precipitate.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1109/05/se.01.html

Fair enough. But then, in October, just a bit later, when asked on Fox News by Huckabee if Romney would "a constitutional amendment that would have established the definition of life at conception.”", Romney responded "Absolutely".



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkrOt9Qposg

I mean, its so awful that Jason Salzman wrote in November that

Quote:
So, until Romney stops hiding from journalists, and announces where he stands on personhood, reporters should no longer state, as as the Las Vegas Sun did Thursday that "he has never voiced explicit support for it." or even, as Politico stated Nov. 9, that it's unclear "he supports the Mississippi law or others like it."

Instead, the most fair and accurate way for journalists to describe Romney's position on personhood is to write that he's flip-flopped on the issue over the years, first for personhood on the federal level (in 2007), then against it (in Sept. 2011), and finally maybe in favor of a state version (last month).


Media Omission: Romney Supported Personhood Four Years Ago , by Jason Salzman.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-salzman/media-omission-r...

I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?? Is Romney so contemptuous of the average American that he can literally argue both sides of an issue out of his mouth in the same campaign??

Given how important abortion is for GOP voters, to not have a clear consistent answer, but rather, to just go all over the map demonstrates to me that Romney is lacking in applying any form of intellectual integrity to his campaign. If he's not going to demonstrate any form of integrity as a candidate, how can I expect it from him as President?

This lack of integrity basically moved him into my "I will absolutely NOT vote for you" list.

Darilian

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
I mean, WHAT THE FUCK?? Is Romney so contemptuous of the average American that he can literally argue both sides of an issue out of his mouth in the same campaign??


That's nothing. Romney can argue both sides of an issue in the same email.

Mitt Romney wrote:
"This week, President Obama will release a budget that won’t take any meaningful steps toward solving our entitlement crisis," Romney said in a statement e-mailed to reporters. "The president has failed to offer a single serious idea to save Social Security and is the only president in modern history to cut Medicare benefits for seniors."


"The President has released a budget that does not fix excessive entitlement funding! Also, he cut entitlement funding!"
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vlad Taltos
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmb


If Santorum wins I'll start buying survival goods for when I have to run from the evil forces of his Theocracy.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
bramadan wrote:
Darilian wrote:
On the economy, he has one or two interesting things to say on the issue- especially the idea of a reduced Corporate tax for companies that are heavily involved in manufacturing in the US.


So in addition to being Iranian on social issues he is French on economic issues. How far behind are "national champions" and direct manufacturing subsidies.

Micromanaging tax code to pervert economic incentives in order to create outcomes that are politically appealing is not an "interesting idea" it is a tried and true path to economic stagnation and (even larger) lobbying bloat. ("Clearly Mr. President manufacturing widgets in the US deserves greater tax subsidy then manufacturing gadgets...")


Micromanaging the tax code certainly.

However, its interesting that ANYONE is actually bringing up the question of manufacturing at all. One could argue that the dollar dropping in value, but living standards remaining high here at home, could be a GREAT opportunity. If the currency is low, but people want to live here, the US would be able to be competitive in manufacturing goods in a way that China, with their terrible human rights record, just isn't.

But neither Obama nor Santorum are immune from the accusation of wanting to play political games with the tax code, so on that issue, its a wash for me.

At a certain level, I think that Robert Reich is correct when he points out that what really matters for a nation's economy in the 21st Century is our human infrastructure- access to education, protection of the right to worship as one pleases, equality of opportunity, access to health care. These things mean that the best and brightest of the world will want to LIVE here. The goal of a nation is to create the best society for one's citizens, by creating a place where the best and brightest want to live here. But you can't do that if the majority of people are in poverty- the political situation gets too unstable.

Leveling out access to opportunity in this country just doesn't make sense from a standpoint of social justice- it makes good economic sense. If the US can keep itself as being a place where people around the world want to live, while using an undervalued currency to our advantage to create wealth and start to pay off our debt burden, I think that we could just maybe work ourselves out of the hole we dug ourselves into during the "Lost Decade" of the 2000's.

In any event-
Policy issues aside, I think our Democracy benefits by having candidates like Santorum, who actually try and be consistent on issues no matter how 'popular' they are. While I think there are more Santorum's out there than Romney's, Romney is the archetypical professional pol who will say anything to get elected to the General Public, while secretly making promises to his backers for the enormous funds that he needs to run.

I would rather see a dozen more candidates like Santorum, on the Left and the Right, than one more Mitt Romney.

Darilian

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
Anyway-
Given that Drew, BJ, and DW are avoiding talking about any GOP candidates like the plague, if I didn't take the effort of trying to find something good to say about Santorum, these threads would be dull, dull, dull indeed.

I'm good for the GeekGold Economy! Just look at all the GeekGold that Chad and Marshall have given out to people anxious to prove what an idiot I am!!!!



Darilian
8 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Golly wrote:


If Santorum wins I'll start buying survival goods for when I have to run from the evil forces of his Theocracy.


I hate comments like this. No matter who we ELECT for a 4 year term we will not have a Theocracy. We could elect the figgin POPE and it still would not make our system of government a THEOCRATIC one.

The President is one person with a great deal of influence and power but that power is not with out checks and balances. And that power is over very specific areas, not all areas of government.

The President is one person with very defined powers for a very specific predefined time limit.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
flag msg tools
Yep, I am a girl Scientist. Come for the breasts; Stay for the brains!
badge
For as long as I shall live I will testify to love; I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough.
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Anyway-
Given that Drew, BJ, and DW are avoiding talking about any GOP candidates like the plague, if I didn't take the effort of trying to find something good to say about Santorum, these threads would be dull, dull, dull indeed.

I'm good for the GeekGold Economy! Just look at all the GeekGold that Chad and Marshall have given out to people anxious to prove what an idiot I am!!!!



Darilian


You know I love you dearly... but on this topic... you are talking like an idiot.

whistle
3 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
Meerkat wrote:
Golly wrote:


If Santorum wins I'll start buying survival goods for when I have to run from the evil forces of his Theocracy.


I hate comments like this. No matter who we ELECT for a 4 year term we will not have a Theocracy. We could elect the figgin POPE and it still would not make our system of government a THEOCRATIC one.

The President is one person with a great deal of influence and power but that power is not with out check and balances. And that power is over very specific areas, not all areas of government.

The President is one person with very defined powers for a very specific per-defined time limit.


Don't worry.
I'm going to bet that he didn't move back from Canada in 2008 either.....



Darilian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Santorum has always been consistent on issues that he feels are of the utmost importance to him.


I wouldn't go that far. We're talking about a guy who decries earmarks and special interests who sought earmarks when in office and was in charge of an effort to place "loyal Republicans" in senior positions with major lobbyists in order to ensure that Republicans got more of the spoils of crony capitalism.

We're talking about a guy who calls health exceptions in abortion restrictions "phony" and wants no health of the mother exceptions for the ban on partial birth abortion...but who (with his wife, although she wasn't in a great mental state at the time) chose to abort their own nearly-viable fetus because of the health risk it posed to her. How anyone could lead the charge against exceptions even for serious health risks when it was precisely that level of risk that caused him to support his wife's abortion is beyond me, and I don't think it points to integrity per se.

While we're on the subject of abortion -- arguably Santorum's defining issue as a politician -- it's worth noting that by his own account he was pro-choice until he decided to run for Congress. Now, it's entirely possible that he happened to change his mind at the time he ran and that he happened to become more and more pro-choice as he got older, but the consistency he paints is simply not accurate.

Speaking of consistency, the Club for Growth put it pretty well:

Quote:
Santorum has a mixed record and showed clear signs of varying his votes based on the election calendar.


Santorum has cultivated an image of the too-honest-for-his-own-good politician. As a result, when he says crazy things (like that the terrorists brought down two towers but we brought down two countries so they lost) he gets a pass from people who long for honest politicians. Unfortunately, I don't think he's nearly as honest as he represents...and the crazy things he says are still crazy.
8 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
That's a great argument, Chad!

Your critique on his position on abortion is particularly well done- why support an abortion for his wife but not for others. Very nicely done.

But even granting your point, Santorum's performance on this particular issue of Abortion, and what would he do specifically if he was elected- is FAR superior to that of Romney. Does anyone really know WHAT Romney will support when he's in power? What type of judges? And on the basis of what?

While I think that you make a good prima facie argument that there is a degree of personal hypocrisy on abortion (specifically), I still haven't seen him backtrack on what he would want to do as President.

He could backtrack and flip flop- he is, by no stretch of the imagination, a perfect candidate. But he's better than Romney, and interesting too boot.

But then, I've already stated that if it came down to a choice between Obama and Santorum, I'd probably choose Obama, despite a desire to give Santorum a chance to make his case and change my mind.

Quote:
Unfortunately, I don't think he's nearly as honest as he represents...and the crazy things he says are still crazy.

I'm less interested in his crazy talk than in what he does. What bugs me about Ron Paul isn't that crazy people back him, and that he has, on occasion for tactical reasons, said crazy things to attract their votes. What bugs me about Paul is that he took their money and then refused to admit that there might be some issues of bad judgement involved.

Demonstrate Santorum making an error in judgement akin to that, and despite my curiousity about him, I'd disavow him.

However, I'm not going to 'move to Canada' if Santorum wins. (Unless he has made some truly AWFUL mistakes of judgement as a politician.) The Republic will persevere, and I think that there is (potentially) a lot of opportunity and good that could come out of a Santorum presidency.

Given that my primary here in Texas is being moved back so far in the year, I have plenty of time to sit back and generally watch the primary game for what it is- finally, a contest.

Darilian
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Vlad Taltos
United States
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmb
Meerkat wrote:
Golly wrote:


If Santorum wins I'll start buying survival goods for when I have to run from the evil forces of his Theocracy.


I hate comments like this. No matter who we ELECT for a 4 year term we will not have a Theocracy. We could elect the figgin POPE and it still would not make our system of government a THEOCRATIC one.

The President is one person with a great deal of influence and power but that power is not with out checks and balances. And that power is over very specific areas, not all areas of government.

The President is one person with very defined powers for a very specific predefined time limit.


I was deliberately being slightly hyperbolic. But I do feel that the long time stance of the conservative Christians that laws\governance need to biblically biased (opps I did it again) and rooted in the Theology of Christianity. That is not too different than the Islamic imposition of Sharia law. We can vote our way out of democracy, as we might see with some of the Middle-Eastern states that are currently in flux. Given the nature of the Ricksters comments this week I'd say him being in charge is a step in that direction. De facto can still be a fact.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Meerkat wrote:
The President is one person with a great deal of influence and power but that power is not with out checks and balances. And that power is over very specific areas, not all areas of government.


This is true. However, any election that brings Santorum to power - or Gingrich, or probably even Romney - will almost certainly also mean Republican majorities in the House and Senate as well. And unlike the Democrats, the GOP works in near-lockstep unison, because unlike the Democrats (where Joe Manchin caucuses with Barbara Boxer), the modern GOP is ideologically unified. Grover Norquist was explaining to CPAC just a couple of weeks ago that the GOP doesn't have to be worried about Romney's flip-flopping because Romney will fall in line and do what the rest of the GOP tells him to do, and he's almost certainly right because if nothing else, Romney doesn't have the spine to tell those elements of the GOP where to stick it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
William Boykin
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Are You Not Entertained????
mb
mightygodking wrote:
Grover Norquist was explaining to CPAC just a couple of weeks ago that the GOP doesn't have to be worried about Romney's flip-flopping because Romney will fall in line and do what the rest of the GOP tells him to do, and he's almost certainly right because if nothing else, Romney doesn't have the spine to tell those elements of the GOP where to stick it.


I disagree with this slightly. Romney will do what he is told not because the GOP is an ideologically coherent bunch. (I think that argument is a bit overstated- I think there will be many members in the House who will want to go much further than what the House Leadership will want to support.)

Romney will do what he is told because he owes too many political favors to too many people. He is beholden to a LOT of very powerful people right now, and to keep them happy he will do what he can to pay off their investment in him.

Functionally, however, this results in the same thing- Romney will do what the GOP Leadership tells him to do, as the modern GOP leadership is essentially a bunch of flunkies for about 100 'superdonors'.

Darilian
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Bird
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
Romney will do what he is told because he owes too many political favors to too many people. He is beholden to a LOT of very powerful people right now, and to keep them happy he will do what he can to pay off their investment in him.

Functionally, however, this results in the same thing- Romney will do what the GOP Leadership tells him to do, as the modern GOP leadership is essentially a bunch of flunkies for about 100 'superdonors'.


Oh, I'd go further than that, Dar. Romney's going to do what the superdonors want, and not simply because he is beholden to them (which he is). He's going to do what they want because it's what he wants, because he's one of them. If he ever has a moral concern - well, see spine, lack of.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Darilian wrote:
That's a great argument, Chad!

Your critique on his position on abortion is particularly well done- why support an abortion for his wife but not for others. Very nicely done.


It's nothing unique to Santorum.

"The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion"
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
A little bummed but it may be that what we really need is a complete republican victory, the resulting 8 to 12 years of misery to wake people up to realizing what is really at stake.

It's nothing less than a return to the robber baron era and a loss of all worker protections plus a few oppressive religious values being enforced as the law.

The only way we are going to end these 70 hour weeks is for 51%+ of the population to wake up. The only way to get folks motivated about abortion in a serious way is for it to be outlawed for a decade.

It's the only way to break the corporate/religious tie that the republicans have going.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Prev «  1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.