Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 89

Thread: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

  1. #51
    Advisor Swizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-05-12 @ 11:33 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    351

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by tessaesque View Post
    Being as you are obviously not a member of the tea party, how would you possibly know? Media reports? Speculation?
    Nah, from my experience, the tea party abhors any sort of perceived liberal policies, whether they're fiscal or not.

    Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

    For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.

    That's not for fiscal reasons at all, and that's just one example that's close to home for me.

  2. #52
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swizz View Post
    Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

    For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.
    I'm sorry, just wanting to check.

    Are you suggseting that New START...a DIFFERENT treaty then START I that was proposed by Reagan....is the "Same" treaty in all instances of its affect?

    Or are you suggesting that two things that when spoken about broadly seem similar but yet when talked about in specifics have differences can not cause someone to have different views about then without being hypocritical?

  3. #53
    Advisor Swizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-05-12 @ 11:33 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    351

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Once again, as I said, I wouldn't be calling peoples views or thoughts or comments ignorant when your own shows similar qualities.

    <--- Long admitted and open Tea Party supporter on this forum that's attended rallys who is advocating for this guy as a President.

    The only reason members of the Tea Party movement have to rip this guy on, other than the two comments Vicc pointed to that ignore other relevant facts concerning his stance...are non-Tea Party issues. Now, because his opponents will try to trumpet those up individuals within the movement may dislike him for his broader stances based on their own broader stances. However, looking at him purely through the concerns and views that the movement...not the individual members...has a stated care for, he's an exceptionally good candidate.

    To put it another way....

    One could say that the Anti-War movement would have a wet dream about Ron Paul in regards to his war policies. However, it would also be realistic to say that individual members of that movement would not vote for him and tear him to shreds if he ran as a Democrat (The typical haven of the Anti-War movement). Not because he wasn't an ideal anti-war candidate, but because various movements like the Tea Party movement and the Anti-War movement rarely encompass an individuals ENTIRE view. IE, you rarely find someone that cares 100% ONLY about Tea Party issues or 100% ONLY about Anti-War issues. Thus, if the sum of a person doesn't match with a sum of the individuals views, they may not support them even if the individual falls 100% in line with the views of hte Primary movement the voter identifes themselves as.

    In regards to TEA PARTY ISSUES Huntsman is a very good candidate. In regards to individual members of the Tea Party movement, he may not be a very good candidate because he may not encompass their other views and their Tea Party focused views may not be enough to outweigh that.

    Huntsman is very much in line with the ideals of the Tea Party movement. That said I wouldn't be surprised if he's nto the most liked of the candidates by INDIVIDUALS within the Tea Party.

    However, I do think compared to Obama he has the fiscal credentials to motivate the Tea Party base.
    Yeah and that's all fair. I believe you mean that sincerely. But I have a hard time believing that will be consensus across the tea party as a whole.

    Or, if you'd prefer me not use the term 'tea party', I'll just say the far right. There has been a move to the right in reaction to Obama's presidency that is rather undeniable. And I find it hard to believe they will like someone who worked for Obama, supports civil unions, supported cap and trade, embraced the stimulus (albeit with some reservations), etc.

  4. #54
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,198

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swizz View Post
    Nah, from my experience, the tea party abhors any sort of perceived liberal policies, whether they're fiscal or not.

    Remember when Ronald Reagan called for reduction of our nuclear arms? Well Barack Obama and Richard Lugar (senator from my state) happen to agree. Unfortunately, since that START treaty that Lugar supported was signed by Barack Obama, he now has a tea party challenger in the primaries next year.

    For...the...START...treaty. That's the reason being cited. That same one that got 2/3s of the votes in the Senate and was supported by secretaries of state from several Republican administrations. Yeah, that's the one. But Obama liked it, so Lugar's got a tea party challenger.

    That's not for fiscal reasons at all, and that's just one example that's close to home for me.
    I agree with this. There seem to be a lot of conservatives who are changing their opinions on issues just because Obama supports it. And they should be called out on their hypocrisy. But I don't think that represents the majority of conservatives or the majority of Tea Partiers. There is a small fringe of extremists that are very loud and seem to be the only ones who get heard. I know many who are consistent with their beliefs and supported that treaty.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  5. #55
    Advisor Swizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-05-12 @ 11:33 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    351

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    I'm sorry, just wanting to check.

    Are you suggseting that New START...a DIFFERENT treaty then START I that was proposed by Reagan....is the "Same" treaty in all instances of its affect?

    Or are you suggesting that two things that when spoken about broadly seem similar but yet when talked about in specifics have differences can not cause someone to have different views about then without being hypocritical?
    I'm not suggesting they're the same thing at all. I'm suggesting that the new START treaty simply moves towards reduction of nuclear arms...a goal championed by Reagan.

    But more importantly, I am suggesting that the START treaty is NOT a fiscal issue. You claimed that the tea party's main worry was fiscal issues, and that may be true, but I pointed to an example of a tea party primary challenger arising over an issue that wasn't fiscal in the slightest. THAT was the point of my post.

  6. #56
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    If Republicans truly have an overarching goal of reclaiming the White House, they will unite behind whomever wins the nomination. If, however, they prefer putting "tests of purity" on narrow issues ahead of that goal, they will help assure the President's re-election. That one faction might cite social issues, another foreign policy, another environmental policy, another national defense, another health care, etc. will make little difference.

    Choices have consequences. All choices are deliberate. The reality will be that those factions will have make a conscious choice to produce exactly the outcome that would have resulted under such circumstances. Moreover, those factions will, their loud objections to the contrary, have made a substantive investment in exactly the policies that would be sustained or pursued following the election.

    Such a situation would not be unprecedented. Victory has often been achieved not solely on account of the merits of the winning party, but also on account of the divisions among the ranks of the losing side.

  7. #57
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Swizz View Post
    I'm not suggesting they're the same thing at all. I'm suggesting that the new START treaty simply moves towards reduction of nuclear arms...a goal championed by Reagan.
    And George Bush was against nation building.

    Barack Obama is for lowering Taxes.

    Tim Pawlenty is for abortions.

    Dick Cheney supports gay rights while Barack Obama doesn't.

    If you want to take a BROAD statement without looking at specifics involved with justifying or backing up that statement you can make a lot of absurd assertions.

    Where is it that the Tea Party, those challenging Lugar, or anyone else have said that Reducing the amount of Nuclear Weapons in the world is a bad thing. Who is suggesting START was a bad thing? People had issues with the SPECIFICS within New START.

    But more importantly, I am suggesting that the START treaty is NOT a fiscal issue. You claimed that the tea party's main worry was fiscal issues, and that may be true, but I pointed to an example of a tea party primary challenger arising over an issue that wasn't fiscal in the slightest. THAT was the point of my post.
    You pointed to an indvidiual local cell mounting a primary challenge. You're absolutely right on that. Because as you move away from the central portion of the movement you get more individualism. Tea Parties in some areas are filled with more socially conservative people and thus are supporting people who are fiscally good AND socially good. Other Tea Parties in other areas are less socially conservative and support people who are Fiscally good and socially moderate or socially irrelevant. However, at the heart of all of them is that they're good FISCALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY.

    Show me a Tea Party group or candidate that was not fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially conservative and still got significant Tea Party support...specifically national support...and you'd likely have my agreement. But that's not the case.

    And funny, with just a TINY bit of research I can already see issues regarding his sponsorship of the DREAM act which is a fiscal and governmental issue, his support of ear marks, and his views on the Federal Reserve as being key to their opposition to him as well. But...hmm, odd, you failed to mention those things.

  8. #58
    Distributist
    Jeezy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,326

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    LOL

    "Grown-up republicans" is code for liberal in sheep's clothing. Easy to spot these days.
    Actually, "grown-up Republicans" are the ones who drag the party to success, kicking and screaming.

    (Despite people like you.)
    SWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAGSWAG
    Quote Originally Posted by Josie
    Thanks for your awesomeness, Jeezy.

  9. #59
    Advisor Swizz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-05-12 @ 11:33 PM
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    351

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    You pointed to an indvidiual local cell mounting a primary challenge. You're absolutely right on that. Because as you move away from the central portion of the movement you get more individualism. Tea Parties in some areas are filled with more socially conservative people and thus are supporting people who are fiscally good AND socially good. Other Tea Parties in other areas are less socially conservative and support people who are Fiscally good and socially moderate or socially irrelevant. However, at the heart of all of them is that they're good FISCALLY and GOVERNMENTALLY.

    Show me a Tea Party group or candidate that was not fiscally and governmentally conservative but socially conservative and still got significant Tea Party support...specifically national support...and you'd likely have my agreement. But that's not the case.
    I never once said there were tea party candidates who weren't fiscally conservative. Never once. I just said that more of them are more conservative socially than you're letting on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    And funny, with just a TINY bit of research I can already see issues regarding his sponsorship of the DREAM act which is a fiscal and governmental issue, his support of ear marks, and his views on the Federal Reserve as being key to their opposition to him as well. But...hmm, odd, you failed to mention those things.
    Alright, do we need to get specific? I didn't think you needed me to write a research paper on Lugar's primary challenger.

    The tea party group in Indiana that wants a challenge for Lugar has cited four reasons in particular from the start. Perhaps more have arisen since then, not sure. But those four were:
    1) Support for the DREAM Act
    2) Support for the new START treaty
    3) Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor
    4) Confirmation of Elana Kagan

    So at least 3 of those 4 are not fiscal issues, which alone proves my point.

    The final issue, which you claim IS fiscal, is the DREAM Act. Well guess what? The CBO estimated that the DREAM Act would reduce the deficit by $1.4 billion over 10 years. So if we're framing it as a fiscal issue...it's one that a conservative should support!

    My point is still proven: the fact that Lugar, considered a reliable conservative in a red state for decades, is now seeing a challenge from his right, proves that the Republican party has moved to the right since Obama's presidency began. And since the reasons cited for this tea party challenge are not fiscal, it proves my point that tea party candidates are not singularly focused on fiscal issues, but are driven by conservative ideology as a whole.

  10. #60
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Jon Hunstman Declares His Candidacy (Watch Live)

    He's saying a lot of things I like. He gets it.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •