I guess I'm not part of the "thjey" who don't like Romney. I like Romney. I mean, he's ok. I'd vote for him. I've been assuming he would be the Republican candidate all along.
Printable View
I guess I'm not part of the "thjey" who don't like Romney. I like Romney. I mean, he's ok. I'd vote for him. I've been assuming he would be the Republican candidate all along.
Isn't he the guy who strapped his dog (in some kind of carrier, I presume) on top of his car for a cross-country trip? Not as bad as Sarah Palin and her glee at shooting wolves, but still...I guess I'd have to go with Buddy Roemer.
And southern whites left the democrats in droves after the civil rights act was passed. From that it would seem to me that for those people the appealing part of the democratic party was its racism and perhaps the fact that lincoln had been a republican, not the liberal aspect of the dems.Quote:
Originally Posted by alan
Ron paul seems to be the only candidate who has consistently held to his convictions through the years. For that reason, and the fact that his convictions are anti-corppratist and antiwar he may well get my vote this year. If he wins i feel pretty.confident that he'll follow through with his promises to the best of his abilitiesQuote:
Originally Posted by alan
I would disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Southern Democrats have historically been rather conservative. After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. Rising educational levels and rising prosperity in the South, combined with shifts to the left by the national Democratic Party following the New Deal and a variety of other socio-economic issues, led to widespread abandonment of the Democratic Party by white voters and Republican dominance in many Southern states. In my opinion, liberalism had everything to do with it while race played a very minor role.
I hear you jp1. On the one hand the Paul agenda is not the agenda as such I want to advance. On the other hand, Obama is a horror (and I feel clean that I never voted for him and voted 3rd party, though I admit I advised those who were going to vote Dem come hell or high water to go with him in the primaries, however most other candidates like Edwards had dropped out by the time the primary came to CA anyway - so it was really just him or the known corruption of the Clinton machine). Most of the Republicans share the same positions as Obama on the issues for which I am most disgusted with him.Quote:
Ron paul seems to be the only candidate who has consistently held to his convictions through the years. For that reason, and the fact that his convictions are anti-corppratist and antiwar he may well get my vote this year. If he wins i feel pretty.confident that he'll follow through with his promises to the best of his abilities
And why is the Paul agenda not the agenda as such I want to advance? Number one, I don't think libertarians in his mold take environmental issues seriously enough. And to me they are huge. And this is less to say that there are no theoretical libertarian proposals for environmental issues that may work, than to wonder how seriously they take the issue. Is being true to libertarian dogma #1 or is preserving a somewhat livable planet through libertarian or regulatory or whatever measures best achieve it?
But ho ho ho Obama. Where to even start? He is not strong on "Democratic" or "liberal" or whatever you want to call them issues. On the environment: the climate talks that went on recently actually went down in flames, they crashed and burned (yes I know this issue got no mainstream media coverage - well what do you know). The Obama administration covered up for BP and his regulators failed to adequately regulate it before hand. He's not strong on the environment. Entitlements are more something I grudgingly acknowledge a few of which have done a lot of good (social security, unemployment, food stamps) rather than cheer for. But really for the left: on economic and social issues: Obama is not really defending entitlements, he's put social security and medicare cuts on the table (in order to continue tax cuts), things like the social security tax cut hasten the demise of social security. His health care plan may or may not do some limited good but it is entirely corporatist at the core. Well these are plenty of reasons to say "Obama is meh", but why do I say rather that he is a horrror?
Because he's bringing on a total police state in America! Yes the NDAA and the threat of indefinite detention of Americans, yes continuing to hold the existing enemy combatants in the indefinite detention we already have, yes killing American citizens randomly without any due process, yes drone wars and slaughter all over the world (and I have seen what we do to the rest of the world we will do to our own - and it scares the heck out of me). It is madness. It must be stopped. Civil liberties as the #1 issue? You know for deep philosophical reasons I would say the environmental as the #1 issue as without a habitable planet nothing matters. However without free speech and the right to protest and with an increasing dictatorial CORPORATE state any hopes of achieving better policy tends to go out the window IMO (if we are an almost dictatorship it is in the corporatist model certainly not the the communist model - not that that is desirable either). Rights to protest and rights to free speech are threatened by the government holding indefinite detention over everyone's head (possibly by PIPA, SOPA as well though those are lesser threats IMO). I don't favor habeus corpus just because it leads to good policy, it is not a right-left thing. I favor it because without it you have endless destruction of peoples lives (those unfairly arrested) and tyranny plain and simple. The path we are going down is a horror, the entire of history warns against it: "don't go there!". And it is just a completely unjust way to treat human beings. But I do also believe little good policy comes out of a police state and we are there already legally, the only thing left to do is implement what is already legal and start locking people up for life for random accusations. So .......
"Because he's bringing on a total police state in America! Yes the NDAA and the threat of indefinite detention of Americans, yes continuing to hold the existing enemy combatants in the indefinite detention we already have, yes killing American citizens randomly without any due process, yes drone wars and slaughter all over the world (and I have seen what we do to the rest of the world we will do to our own - and it scares the heck out of me). It is madness. It must be stopped."
Agreed. But we should keep in mind the NDAA was approved by the House and Senate before it got to his desk. While Obama has done nothing to stop it, I think there's enough blame to go around.
But seriously--what is the point of having a presidential veto if he won't use it?Quote:
Originally Posted by creaker
In the end, I'm not surprised, and I am beginning to agree with those of you who see Mitt Barak Romobama as essentially the same guy. While the real action will take place in Congress, if the Prez has the power to stop something, then he should do so if he is against it. I do not buy that he's against it but bowing to the will of the people.
"My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens," Obama said ....
.... while he was signing into law the very act authorizing the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.
And poor George Orwell thought he was writing satire.
"I do not believe that kind of society I describe (in 1984) necessarily will arrive, but I believe… that something resembling it could arrive. I believe also that totalitarian ideas have taken root in the minds of intellectuals everywhere." ~ George OrwellQuote:
Originally Posted by bae