• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

santorum should drop-out

TurtleDude said:
remind me how Newt did in Iowa and New Hampshire

tell me how he is doing in major swing states like Ohio
Click to expand...

Remind me the last time Iowa got one right.

Santorum's funds will dry up. He won't be out by Florida... but he won't last much longer than that.

Santorum needed to carry the momentum he got from Iowa in to South Carolina. He needed to use his victory to get funding, backing, and needed to do better in the South Carolina debates.

He is done. It's not a question of "if," but a question of "when."
 
nota bene said:
You seem to be too. Not to mention dismissive, judgmental, and unfair.
Click to expand...

look, we are voting for president, not savior, not priest, not pope. What sickens me is watching people who think that voting for president is akin to establishing the second coming or to create God's regime on earth. that if they vote for their political interests instead of creating a holy land they will be damned.

I watched an interview in 2008 that almost made me hurl. Some overweight woman at some religious rally was asked 10 policy questions and in all ten cases she agreed with Governor Romney over HIllary (remember when those two appeared to be the nominees) the pollster then asked her who she would vote for and she said HILLARY

why

BECAUSE MITT ISN"T A REAL CHRISTIAN

yeah I am dismissive judgmental and positively puked out by people like that
 
nota bene said:
I don't regard Gingrich as "the" conservative leader. And I don't think Santorum should drop out. Tonight Gingrich has won basically in his own backyard. Given the post-debate bounce he has enjoyed, I'm not sure even Romney is surprised.
Click to expand...

But what can Santorum do to bounce back? Unless he randomly gets a big doner, he's done after Florida.

He can't beat Newt in a debate. He can't outspend Gingrich or Romney in Florida. He's basically dead in the water already.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Newt showed that he can take on his critics, and handle the "skeletons" in a way that gains him popular support.

Romney crumbled a little bit. His debate performances in South Carolina have to plant a seed of doubt in your mind about whether he can debate Barack Obama.

Obama is eloquent and well-spoken. He is an intelligent man. I believe Obama would defeat Romney in the debates, and that would lead him to defeat Mitt Romney in the general election. (Same could be said for Santorum)
Click to expand...

It hasn't shown he can win popular support, it's shown he can win conservative support. I've seen no evidence he can win over enough moderates and independents to unseat Obama.
 
nota bene said:
And rude. I forgot rude.
Click to expand...

so I take it you are not a free thinker? I had some bible thumpers call me and my liberal mother that as if it was an insult. My mother (RIP) shot right back IF YOU PAID HIS TUITION BILLS AT YALE YOU'D LOSE THAT FREE CRAP IN A NY SECOND!!
 
Anagram said:
It hasn't shown he can win popular support, it's shown he can win conservative support. I've seen no evidence he can win over enough moderates and independents to unseat Obama.
Click to expand...

they don't care, the thought of voting for a Mormon upsets them more than allowing a guy that many of them claim is a Muslim to win
 
TurtleDude said:
even one who clearly is a fake over a mormon who has done nothing to disgrace his faith

bible thumpers tend to be irrational on this issue
Click to expand...

How can you say that Gingrich's religion is "fake?"

Also, I don't believe religion had anything to do with this victory. South Carolina was won in the debates.
 
Peter Grimm said:
How can you say that Gingrich's religion is "fake?"

Also, I don't believe religion had anything to do with this victory. South Carolina was won in the debates.
Click to expand...

My wife is catholic. her whole family was catholic at one point. Newt's conversion seems to be akin to Henry IV of France
 
Anagram said:
It hasn't shown he can win popular support, it's shown he can win conservative support. I've seen no evidence he can win over enough moderates and independents to unseat Obama.
Click to expand...

He isn't courting that vote... yet.

He did what he needed to do to win.

Newt is a good enough politician to know how to tailor his message and delivery to court moderates when needed.

That is why some people claim Newt is not a conservative. He has a history of compromising and working across the aisle.
 
Sant spent god knows how long in Iowa to get the conservative vote. Going to a billion churches and what not. He won't be able to do that when primaries/caucus are less then a week to a month apart.

Most of his base is also Newt base so Sant could make a deal to drop out to give Newt a boost. Possible Newt/Sant ticket.
 
jasonxe said:
Sant spent god knows how long in Iowa to get the conservative vote. Going to a billion churches and what not. He won't be able to do that when primaries/caucus are less then a week to a month apart.

Most of his base is also Newt base so Sant could make a deal to drop out to give Newt a boost. Possibl Newt/Sant ticket.
Click to expand...

a newt sant vote would get McGovern level support
 
TurtleDude said:
My wife is catholic. her whole family was catholic at one point. Newt's conversion seems to be akin to Henry IV of France
Click to expand...

Really? Gingrich converted to Catholicism because 90% of his supporters wanted him to?

Re France's Henry IV: "A Calvinist, he converted to Catholicism to satisfy the wishes of 90% or more of the population of France. Henry IV was the first of the Bourbon dynasty."

Henry IV
 
TurtleDude said:
a newt sant vote would get McGovern level support
Click to expand...

I know but his supporters in SC were chanting Sant VP so who knows. If Sant drops then he is getting a spot in Newt plans no doubt. Sant has enough of the social conservative base (that coincides with Newt base) that he can pull a deal.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
Really? Gingrich converted to Catholicism because 90% of his supporters wanted him to?

Re France's Henry IV: "A Calvinist, he converted to Catholicism to satisfy the wishes of 90% or more of the population of France. Henry IV was the first of the Bourbon dynasty."

Henry IV
Click to expand...

I guess I should explain the obvious

both wanted to be king, both converted for political reasons
 
TurtleDude said:
I guess I should explain the obvious

both wanted to be king, both converted for political reasons
Click to expand...

I guess I should explain that for an anology to work, there has to be more in common than there is in difference. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. France had a king; The United States never has. We are also not a primarily Catholic country.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is actually some of the best sense I've seen from the conservative side in regards to the 2012 election. My question for conservatives would be this: what's would you perfer, having someone who matches your positions perfectly, but who will lose to Obama, or someone who is a bit more moderate, but could beat Obama? Someone like Santorum has zero chance at beating Obama. Someone more moderate might.
Click to expand...

I personally would rather have a true conservative run and lose than a moderate that wins...i.e. Bush. Bush was way to left on his domestic agenda (increasing Medicare/Medicade spending among others) and now liberals point to Bush as this right wing politician that ran up the deficit. So, in my opinion, it is better to empower someone that will do the right thing, not the moderate thing, and balance the budget with deep cuts to everything. If that person loses, at least we can point to what Obama will do in the next four years as reason enough not to vote for the next liberal.

Besides, if we have Obama for four more years, chances are the government will fail and we won't be able to borrow so the budget will be forced to be balanced and that might actually be positive in the long run.
 
nota bene said:
I guess I should explain that for an anology to work, there has to be more in common than there is in difference. This is the 21st century, not the 16th. France had a king; The United States never has. We are also not a primarily Catholic country.
Click to expand...

being catholic once would have hurt a candidate. now, with the massive numbers of hispanics its an advantage-especially to a conservative
 
nota bene said:
What evidence do you have that he cannot?
Click to expand...

I thought if you were divorced that sort of precluded that. maybe I am wrong on that-I thought that was the traditional position of that church
 
TurtleDude said:
I thought if you were divorced that sort of precluded that. maybe I am wrong on that-I thought that was the traditional position of that church
Click to expand...

I've never been big on excluding people from anything at church. I don't remember Jesus saying certain people don't deserve redemption.
 
TurtleDude said:
I thought if you were divorced that sort of precluded that. maybe I am wrong on that-I thought that was the traditional position of that church
Click to expand...

No, if you were married in the Church, divorce, and remarry, you cannot receive unless your first marriage was annulled. This is not Gingrich's circumstance, and if you read the Washington Post article I linked, you will understand what his circumstance was and is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom