• 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!

Perry and Paul: Texas-Sized Feud?

Tubub said:
"You guys". I'm a Californian Republican, so stop acting like I'm anything else. I never said Obama couldn't be beaten, I said Perry wasn't the man that could do it. Why? Because he's a complete goof. I agree, it's too early in the election season to call any absolutes, whatsoever, especially ones based on polls or any of the likes.

All I said was that he is incompetent, and unless he miraculously becomes somewhat electable he will lose based on that incompetence. No matter what you may personally think, Obama's approval ratings are not dismal and he has had many successes during his Presidency. A guy like Perry would tank in the election, even if he could somehow squeezed through the primaries

If the Republican Party nominates Perry, 2012 will be a slaughter year
Click to expand...

I don't know what else to say besides the fact that your continued notion that Perry is unelectable in a general election is completely unfounded and seems to be rooted in philosophical dislike for the man as opposed to any polling data or anything at all concrete.

Palin was a mistake. She added "energy" for a while, and pushed numbers up for a couple of months(hence my phrase "short-term fix") but as time wore on it was clear she was prone to many gaffes and was very silly and inexperienced. McCain's strategy aimed at latching on to Bush supporters, which turned out to be the wrong approach since by the time the election came around Bush virtually had no supporters. McCain should've run like he did in 2000, a Maverick. IF he had taken the risk of being outspoken AGAINST certain failed Bush policies and distanced himself from Bush, there wouldn't have been the "McSame" campaign.

The horrible Bush ratings MAY not have transferred over to the McCain camp like they inevitably did in '08
Click to expand...

Once again I disagree. McCain did everything he could to distance himself from President Bush. He did not move to the right except when he gave the nod to Governor Palin, which resulted in a huge surge in the polls. The "McSame" campaign was launched because democrat operatives, and rightly so, believed that it would be a good political move to paint McCain with the same brush as Bush despite the fact that they were two vastly different candidates.
 
ric27 said:
Perry wins the Republican primary (thats a given) would you support him in the general election?

Why or why not, Tububby?
Click to expand...

I'd have to see the debates and everything.

I may not vote for Perry just based on his anti-Science. The anti-evolution thing scares me
 
Rawhide said:
Your logic is flawed. Sure he may have stronger support than Perry among democrats and independents but that support surely isn't as strong as Obama's, which is all that will matter in a general election. Not only is Paul a long shot in this primary, he will not be able to get the conservative base out in November and will easily lose democrats and independents to Obama. Thus he has virtually no chance in this race and should not be compared to serious candidates like Perry, Romney, etc.
Click to expand...

At this point, I'm ready to vote for etc.
 
Rawhide said:
I don't know what else to say besides the fact that your continued notion that Perry is unelectable in a general election is completely unfounded and seems to be rooted in philosophical dislike for the man as opposed to any polling data or anything at all concrete.
Click to expand...
It's based on who he mainly caters to and the fact that is not a majority of the country. Bush beat Gore and Kerry because of a lot of things, not just his religious connections. While you're right that I don't agree with the theocratic crowd, and am not from a small town, it also happens to be that more people live in big cities and don't go to mega churches and have public prayers


Raw Hide said:
Once again I disagree. McCain did everything he could to distance himself from President Bush. He did not move to the right except when he gave the nod to Governor Palin, which resulted in a huge surge in the polls. The "McSame" campaign was launched because democrat operatives, and rightly so, believed that it would be a good political move to paint McCain with the same brush as Bush despite the fact that they were two vastly different candidates.
Click to expand...

McCain was one of two Republicans to vote against the repeal of the Estates Tax in 2002. He later tried to say it was a mistake. In 2000 he called Robertson and similar whack jobs "agents of intolerance". In 2008 he tried to back away from the statement. In 2000 McCain supported the federal ban for offshore drilling. In 2008 one of the campaign slogans was "Drill Baby Drill"

I believe McCain is a great American and I supported him despite throughout the 2008 election, but he sold his soul to try to win the election and lost anyway. He really desperately wanted to be President, and between him and others like Bush or Obama he definitely did deserve it more.
 
X Factor said:
Yeah. I think the breed died out after him though.
Click to expand...

No, there's plenty. California Republicans just tend not to be as Conservative on social issues, and other people gawk at that
 
Tubub said:
No, there's plenty. California Republicans just tend not to be as Conservative on social issues, and other people gawk at that
Click to expand...

Or fiscal issues, or on the issue of limited government. Schwartzenegger was technically a Republican wasn't he?
 
X Factor said:
Or fiscal issues, or on the issue of limited government. Schwartzenegger was technically a Republican wasn't he?
Click to expand...

Yes, technically. He did talk a good game. Our current democratic governor is acting more like a Republican than a Democrat.

Which is a total surprise to me. I didn't vote for him
 
Ikari said:
If by some magical windfall of luck, Paul got the GOP nomination; I'd vote for him. He is likely the only Republican candidate on the field right now that I could vote for.
Click to expand...
If Ron Paul wins, then they will start digging up on his history. First they can tell how contradicting he is. He only supports legislation that would benefit his own district.

However, I don't think he will put into very good light when he is going to explain why we should keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance. Why we should let people without insurance die. Why we should abolish Social Security. Why we should abolish the minimum wage.

The reason they don't criticize Ron Paul is because he has no chance to win, and criticize him makes you lose in the polls. Obama wouldn't have that problem.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Yes, technically. He did talk a good game. Our current democratic governor is acting more like a Republican than a Democrat.

Which is a total surprise to me. I didn't vote for him
Click to expand...

Isn't your current gov Jerry Brown...again?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Surprisingly enough, yes it is.
Click to expand...

It's California. I can't say I'm particularly surprised - no offense. I would be surprised if he was acting in any arguable way as a Republican.
 
Camlon said:
If Ron Paul wins, then they will start digging up on his history. First they can tell how contradicting he is. He only supports legislation that would benefit his own district.

However, I don't think he will put into very good light when he is going to explain why we should keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance. Why we should let people without insurance die. Why we should abolish Social Security. Why we should abolish the minimum wage.

The reason they don't criticize Ron Paul is because he has no chance to win, and criticize him makes you lose in the polls. Obama wouldn't have that problem.
Click to expand...

There are things I may not agree with Paul on. However, I think he is the most honest one up there, the one with the most integrity; and when he says he believes in something and would push the government in that direction...I believe him.
 
-sigh- Ikari, I agree!

It's why I'm so frustrated. haha
 
X Factor said:
It's California. I can't say I'm particularly surprised - no offense. I would be surprised if he was acting in any arguable way as a Republican.
Click to expand...

Well, at least partly.

Gov. Jerry Brown will unveil a stark budget plan for California on Monday, proposing to slash welfare spending in half, cut nearly 20% from the state's university system and reduce healthcare coverage for the poor -- while aksing that voters approve an array of tax increases.

Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement he is proposing a budget composed roughly of half cuts and half taxes to confront a budget shortfall that his office has estimated at $25.4 billion.
Click to expand...

A real Republican would have stopped at spending cuts and not asked for more taxes.

He has a real hurdle in getting spending cuts like that past the legislature.
 
Rawhide said:
Wrong. RP is nowhere near as electable as Perry. As I already explained he wont be able to get the conservative base out and he will lose independents and democrats to Obama by tenfold. All this talk about being articulate and experienced virtually means nothing -- we on the right got former President Bush elected even though he could barely speak English at the time, but had the support of his party and independents.
Click to expand...

The issue is that Perry loses the independents and democrats completely to Obama. There are independents, like myself, who are going to vote for Obama, whom I personally think is a bad President, if Perry gets the nomination just because the thought of Perry being President is lot worse than having Obama in office. He has so much baggage and no good plan for the economy. So far, the only thing I've heard him say about fixing the economy is pretty much repeat things about SS and what other GOPers have been saying. He has no independent ideas about how to fix things. But he has a lot of ideas about changing things that are really bad from the viewpoint of many independent/moderates and especially from most democrats. Plus, he is showing himself as being very anti-science and unwilling to consider any evidence against any belief he already has.

Paul may not inspire me to vote for him, but he certainly doesn't inspire me to vote for Obama just to try to keep him out of office.
 
roguenuke said:
The issue is that Perry loses the independents and democrats completely to Obama. There are independents, like myself, who are going to vote for Obama, whom I personally think is a bad President, if Perry gets the nomination just because the thought of Perry being President is lot worse than having Obama in office. He has so much baggage and no good plan for the economy. So far, the only thing I've heard him say about fixing the economy is pretty much repeat things about SS and what other GOPers have been saying. He has no independent ideas about how to fix things. But he has a lot of ideas about changing things that are really bad from the viewpoint of many independent/moderates and especially from most democrats. Plus, he is showing himself as being very anti-science and unwilling to consider any evidence against any belief he already has.

Paul may not inspire me to vote for him, but he certainly doesn't inspire me to vote for Obama just to try to keep him out of office.
Click to expand...

What you're saying does not stand with the numerous media sources who are consistently and constantly reporting on the fact that Obama is losing independents and centrist Democrats by the masses.
 
Rawhide said:
What you're saying does not stand with the numerous media sources who are consistently and constantly reporting on the fact that Obama is losing independents and centrist Democrats by the masses.
Click to expand...

But who is he losing them to? The polls that I have seen show that Obama is losing popularity. But that fails to take into account a comparison between Obama and other people, in most cases. As more independents and democrats learn about Perry and his past, it is quite likely that more of them are going to want Obama in office, instead of him. Perry is not likely to get a lot of independents excited to vote for him. And I doubt he is going to get more than a few Democrats to vote for him. Some of his policies (instate tuition in TX to illegal aliens) could even lead to some Republicans just deciding not to vote or to vote for some other candidate.

If he gets the nomination, things like the mandatory vaccine and Willingham execution are going to be splashed all over the media. His comments about SS and his reputation for giving various government contracts/jobs to his buddies/campaign donors are going to get more widely known. All the comments he makes about skepticism of global warming and evolution will not do well for him with many people. His proposed Amendments will come out. Heck, pretty much his whole book, Fed Up, will come to the forefront of politics and cause him major headaches when it comes to trying to get votes. There is no way he is going to get any GLBT votes, nor will he get any votes from people who staunchly support gay/trans rights. He is unlikely to get the votes of any prochoice people. He is unlikely to win the votes of any anti-capital punishment people. Even some Republicans will likely look at Perry's record and statements, and choose to either not vote or vote for a candidate outside of the two parties.

He isn't going to get a big following outside of the GOP. Many independents who wouldn't want to vote for Obama, no matter who the GOP candidate is, are likely to either just not vote or vote for an other-party candidate. This means that the vast majority of his support will have to come from the GOP. He will need to get his base very fired up to go out and actually vote. It could happen, but I doubt it will be to the point to beat Obama.
 
Ikari said:
It seems that the Gulf Coast Rail District, for whom Paul wrote the letter for, is a government controlled "company" which services the rails in that part of Texas. Not quite the "give stimulus money to a bunch of businesses" as you claim.
Click to expand...

No, the GCRD is just the manager of the facility which is used by a number of corporations large and small. The GCRD, which I believe is non-profit, would not profit from the grant, but the businesses that use the facilities would. This directly contradicts Pauls' ideology because he has explicitely stated that it is both wrong and bad for businesses to take money from the govt. According to Paul, when businesses take money from the govt, it puts them in danger of falling under the control of the govt

Just Say No To Government Money

President Obama signed an executive order last week continuing the faith-based initiatives program created by former President Bush. When the program was created, I warned that giving taxpayer money to private religious organizations would eventually lead to political control and manipulation of them. This week has provided some evidence that this was a justified concern
Click to expand...

Money is the Trojan horse that government uses to infiltrate and infect organizations. Funding that, on the outset, is designed to strengthen and support, will bureaucratize and regulate in the end. It is sad to see charities now having reason to focus on lobbying, regulatory compliance and paper pushing to get and retain money taken by force, rather than beefing up private, voluntary fundraising activities. Those tempted to join Washington’s ongoing bailout bonanza should instead take the famed advice of former First Lady Nancy Reagan on the acceptance of harmful and addictive substances and “Just Say No” to government money. This is the best protection from government control.
Click to expand...
 
sangha said:
And Orange County

And Arnold Schwazenegger

There are plenty of repubs in CA, but oddly enough (for CA) the repubs there aren't bat **** crazy
Click to expand...

No, the Democrats have the bat*** crazy vote pretty much sewn up. The republicans have to rely on the sane vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom