The GOP Presidential Race = Reality TV Stars and $

manofmystery wrote: cannon wrote: I'm somewhat surprised at the responses. As a Canadian who follows US politics quite extensively, I must say I'm kind of dumbfounded by members from the US with thier posts. I thought the office of the president of the US held more respect than what is represented here in this discussion. Have I been that knieve? Astonished.. yes. Ignorant...I guess so.         I don't believe I showed any disrespect to the office itself in my posts.  The individuals who occupy the office are fair game.  Especially if the president himself is acting outside his authority and/or is disrespecting the office.

Henry Plainview wrote:   I think a lot of people would prefer a "war on fun" over a "war on homosexuals, women, and the poor".

Who wages those wars? As far as I know, politicians wage a "war on regular people", that's all. Which includes all of that and more...

Henry Plainview wrote:   The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   I think a lot of people would prefer a "war on fun" over a "war on homosexuals, women, and the poor". Who wages those wars? As far as I know, politicians wage a "war on regular people", that's all. Which includes all of that and more... I was being a tad melodramatic because of the tone of the article mom posted. ;-) And yes, but there are certain targets that groups prefer over others.

manofmystery wrote: cannon wrote: I'm somewhat surprised at the responses. As a Canadian who follows US politics quite extensively, I must say I'm kind of dumbfounded by members from the US with thier posts. I thought the office of the president of the US held more respect than what is represented here in this discussion. Have I been that knieve? Astonished.. yes. Ignorant...I guess so.         I don't believe I showed any disrespect to the office itself in my posts.  The individuals who occupy the office are fair game.  Especially if the president himself is acting outside his authority and/or is disrespecting the office.

 

 

The Truth wrote: Palin hasn't declared she is running (she's to smart to run) and the republican party is pretty split with her.

Well I don't know about smart, lol, but she's not going to run because she knows she can't win and being a non-Presidential candidate makes her too much money. 

You obviously haven't been watching the polls very much, Mitt Romney is the Republican's favorite and what's wrong with him? (No offensive Morman comments)

He is transparently a man with no principles who will do anything to gain and retain power. And the Massachusetts health care reform he passed will almost certainly sink him with the Republican base, who are most important in the primary. And actually, Giuliani jumped ahead in the most recent CNN poll, although he also cannot win even the primary because he is a repulsive human being. I don't know why he's even talking about running, he spent almost $60 million in 2008 and only got one delegate in 2008. Gingrich is also too flamboyantly terrible of a person to make any headway in the primaries, he's only talking about running for the attention. 

Edited by Henry Plainview - May 27 2011 at 23:11

Palin and "too smart" in the same sentence? 

cannon wrote: In summary, the GOP field is a joke. IMO there is no one who can challenge Obama.

 

Until we have a viable third party no election will matter in the slightest. the dems and reps have entrenched themselves so deeply into the fabric of our laws and culture that we are blinded to the fact that neither adiquately represents anyone. The major points of contention in the primaries is simply who will best pull the party line and the race itself comes down to who is nicer.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: I just came in here to say RON PAUL RON RAUL RON PAUL RON PAUL.

my guess is you'd be spitting on him too after three years

cannon wrote: Proletariat wrote: Until we have a viable third party no election will matter in the slightest. the dems and reps have entrenched themselves so deeply into the fabric of our laws and culture that we are blinded to the fact that neither adiquately represents anyone. The major points of contention in the primaries is simply who will best pull the party line and the race itself comes down to who is nicer. Sure politics in countries with many parities and coalitions can be messy but it does provide for a better representation of the public, wich is a necessity in any democracy or republic.   Do you think there is room for a third party in the US?   Here in Canada we have three major national parties though one of them took a beating in the last election. We have a green party which finally won thier first seat in parliament though thier vote% went down. The separatist party from Quebec went from 50 some seats to 2 and lost its official party status. Quebec has been holding the rest of the country hostage for 50 years. Maybe separatism has finally eroded.   From what I've seen in US politics is that in both presidential primaries both parties run on policies that appeal to thier base but when it comes down to the general election both move to the center to try and capture the independent voters. With that it seems like there is no room for a new party to come up the middle(?).   I shouldn't have written off Ron Paul. He might be the man to straighten out the ship with some of his policies. Some are very common sence well others seem radical IMO.

I dont know how it is in canada but in the US the two major parites get to use government $ to pay for their campaigns and get a bunch of other benefits written into the law. The major problem is that the parties platforms are basically the same. While there is some differences the parties are really very scimilar. Look at Obama and Bush, their policies on almost every issue are shockingly similar. The differences between the parties have more to do with their stances on issues of morality (gay marriage, abortion etc.) than on anything to do with hard politics. We need a couple of radical parties to shake things up. Ideally there would either be no parties at all but in anycase having many options is better than two options that are almost alike. Also both parties function mainly to promote the continuation of the two party system, they have us so brain washed that even when the majority is fed up with both candidates we choose "the lesser of two evils" and don't even think of electing a third party.