RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events If an elected Romney turns out to be "lib'rul" MA Romney...

will you guys possibly split the Republican party by having him primaried in 2016?

Discuss.

I would assume it would depend on how successful "lib'rul" Romney is.

"Lib'rul" George H.W. Bush was primaried by Pat Buchanan, but that was largely because of an economic downtown. If things are going well, you'll probably hear some grumbling in such an event but I wouldn't foresee a challenge.

So, then, all the rumbling from the right about keeping his feet to the fire is inversely proportional to how well the economy does? Seems a little fairweather...or, in this case, not-so-fairweather.

We're not libertarians. We understand compromise.

I'd dare say there is a wing of the party that doesn't and wouldn't be counted as libertarians.

It is rather puzzling, Iggy, how you can be such a purist that you'd rather see Romney lose than settle for a Republican that doesn't conform to your inflexible standards. And at the same time you scorn the Tea Party as contemptuously radical. That really doesn't compute.


Romney would unquestionably be miles above the national suicide that Obama offers over the next four years.

1) I think it was pretty clear when I said "this might be the single worst-written article I've ever read" that I didn't give much credit to many of the claims in the article.

2) While I'm sympathetic to the Tea Party and like many of their points, I'm not a member or participant of the Tea Party

3) There is a clear separation between (1) the "Birthers" and "Obama is a muslim" groups (those two I think arguably have a lot of shared opinion), and (2) the Tea Party crowd which are largely focused only on overtaxation and federal debt.
The conflating of the Birthers with the Tea Party is an attempt by liberals (and people like yourself with a hidden agenda) to slander the Tea Party, when I think an overwhelming majority of Tea party members, as well as an overwhelming majority of mainstream Republicans (Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, for example) disown the "Obama was not born in Hawaii and his birth certificate is fake" crowd.

Repeatedly, I see you lashing out with slanderous venom at Republicans as a whole, conflating the opinion of a tiny minority to smear the whole of Republicans.

It seems to me that you ALWAYS attack Republicans, and NEVER unleash the same slanderous venom on Democrats or the liberal media. And that to me makes your conservative beliefs often rather suspect.
You support Ron Paul to the exclusion of every other republican, and yet you scorn the Tea Party which are the core of Ron Paul's support. That is rather suspect.

But, you do give it credit by posting it and then discussing how it makes you engage in musings of whether or not Obama is a sleeper agent and the domestic enemy.



Count yourself lucky to not be included in their number.



My "inflexible" ass fell on the side of Dick Armey--of whom I am quite suspect--of all people on this one. We fought tooth and nail to keep it a matter of tax and debt and, by way of that, a more inclusive movement. The Sociocons had other plans, however. Today, you will rarely if ever find a "Tea Partier" gain any traction without aligning themselves to the Sociocon agenda.





I have a hidden agenda now!

Reason number 2 I've become less favorable towards Tea Partiers and those sympathetic to Tea Partiers...PARANOIA!!!



While I may not agree with them on all the issues, I've found myself siding more and more with guys like Brooks, Douthat, Frum, and Gerson. I'm just a little louder and clearer in expressing my disdain. The GOP and the conservative movement are dangerously close to becoming complete caricatures of themselves or--even worse--irrelevant.



I think there are already plenty of voices out there decrying the "socialist/communist/alinsky-ist/secularist/abortionist domestic enemies out to destroy God and country" Somebody has to be the introspective one.

As for Paul, I remain a supporter. It doesn't mean, however, I haven't had many a fallout with the "Kenyan, Marxist usurper hellbent on establishing a Western Caliphate" Bagger crowd.

As for Romney, I have little faith in someone who feels like he can say whatever he chooses so long as the campaign can issue a clarification a few hours later (see, for example, pre-existing conditions). He lacks specifics. Other plans seem only half thought out. The only thing I feel I really know about Mitt is that he really wants to be president. You want to have a debate over this stuff...I'm game. As of now, I'm unconvinced that a potential eight years of Mitt is better than another four of Obama and a completely clean slate in 2016.

Whomever is elected president this time around will get to control the federal judiciary , and possibly the SCotUS, for a generation or two. considering how much power the courts have to uphold, or curtail, liberty and/or the size of the federal executive branch, that alone makes even a 'lib'rul' Romney preferable to Obama.

Because there is absolutely no evidence of either side ever holding up appointments and leaving vacancies unfilled......what else have you got?

On the Supreme Court? You're insane.

As for lower courts, they may or may not be some hold-ups in the coming four years, but that doesn't mean Obama won't get any appointments.

But don't worry, Iggy. I'm sure any appointments Obama gets will be much more closely aligned with your "libertarian limited government ideals" that big bad Romney.

I also posted one about allegations that McCain was a traitor who sold out his country. And I seriously doubt you think I believe McCain was a traitor who got other Americans killed. But I raised it for discussion. I've done that on many subjects I disagree with, or at least am skeptical about.



Empty insults, not facts. I've repeatedly posted a gallup poll of Tea Party members that shows they are virtually the same demographically as the rest of the U.S. in their representation of racial groups, in their breakdown across various income levels, and in their proportionate spectrum of political and social beliefs across the spectrum.
NOT dumb rednecks.
NOT ignorant racists.
NOT an all-white-only club.
NOT rich blueblooded children of privelege who only care about themselves and hate all poor and brown people.
NONE of your repeated vicious stereotypes.

The same as the rest of America. Virtually exactly the same, across every category.
And it again draws a spotlight to what lying motive you would have to slander them, against the clear facts.



I've never heard the term "SocioCon" whatever the hell that means.
And I doubt many, if any, Tea Partiers have heard the term you label them under either. Every Tea party person I've spoken to has only raised federal debt and tax issues. None have ever mentioned abortion or gay rights or whatever with me.
However... I consisently hear rabid liberal Promod-type slanderers try to ALLEGE that these issues are of equal importance to Tea Party members. Tea Party members are largely conservative. Some conservatives are more concerned about social issues (gay rights, abortion, stem cell research). There is inevitably some crossover. SOME social-issue advocates will inevitably be Tea Party activists too. But that is not the same as the entire movement being enslaved to an abortion agenda or litmus-test.
And you can always pull out one conservative or liberal who is of that opinion to make the allegation. That's not an honest representation of what the movement is all about.





Yes. At this point, you've slandered so many conservatives, you've defended the vile left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement, you rail endlessly on Fox News. But you **NEVER** criticize the liberal media, you only support conservatives who splinter the Republican party (Whomod was a big Ron Paul supporter too. And was a big McCain supporter also when he was attacking other Republicans, and then bitterly railed on him the second he became the 2008 nominee). And you have a really obnoxious liberal tendency toward insults, slander, and harassment of anyone who disagrees with you.
You are identical in style to Halo 82, Whomod and Prometheus.



It's not paranoia when you really are a partisan tool, pretending to be something you're not.





That tells me a lot right there. Frum and Brooks I regard as Democrats disguised as Republicans. I used to love Brooks before he went to the New York Times, lost his conservative street-cred, and became a guy who salivated over the prospect of an Obama presidency in 2008, and gushed about being "very impressed" by Obama's genius staff of "overeducated achievatrons", "off to a start that nearly justifies the hype".
With conservatives like that, who needs liberals?

It's a joke to call these guys "conservative opinion".




Why?
Why dodge the true issue? You claim to be conservative, but mock "God and Country". Just like Pro. Just like Whomod.

Introspection is recognizing the true enemy from within. Alinsky teaches to infiltrate the system, put on a suit and tie, pretend to be "the man" and collapse the system from within. In the news media, in education, in college academia (which you coincidentally work in), in movies, television and entertainment, that infiltration is precisely what's happened over the last 45 years or so.

And Obama in particular and Hillary Clinton, are the embodiment of that deceit. All that is the fruit of Saul Alinsky, in whom both are clearly and unapologetically indoctrinated.
The edge of the cliff Obama has brought us to is the wet-dream of Frank Marshall Davis, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Cloward and Piven strategy, William Ayers, Jeff Jones (who WROTE the Stimulus and Obamacare bills!), Valerie Jarrett and Van Jones.

Obama has brought us to the edge of economic, financial and military collapse. Destruction of the nation. What could possibly be more important and "introspective" to discuss?!?




"Bagger."
Again with the empty insults characteristic of the far-left, of a Promod.

It was Dinesh D'Souza's ROOTS OF OBAMA'S RAGE that finally convinced me that there was a more refined explanation than Obama being a muslim or conventional marxist to explain his actions as president.
Obama is a "choom-gang" dope-smoking hippie. He is an ultra-liberal on many issues, such as gay rights and abortion, that many muslims would oppose. I would more readily believe him a marxist than a Manchurian muslim. As D'Souza details, it is a hostility toward Western culture and a shared anti-Colonialism Obama shares with muslim conservatives, not their core beliefs.
But in any case, Obama relies on deceit to advance a decidedly un-American agenda.

Obama doesn't have a goal of a North American caliphate, but he does clearly advocate wealth redistribution, class warfare, and (consistent with his indoctrination in liberation theology) wants to diminish U.S./western global power to raise the power of non-european peoples, domestically and worldwide.
That is not "bagger" ignorance or paranoia, that is often verbatim what Obama himself has said, and done as president, as liad out in campaign speeches and prior.





I watched Steve Hayes before the 2nd debate last night, saying it's ridiculous to say Romney has not been specific. That while he could be more specific, he has already been far more specific in what he would do as president than Obama has in either 2008 or the current campaign.

Democrats will never acknowledge anything Romney offers as valid, no matter how specific. They will just slice it into misrepresentative pieces and throw them back at Romney in smear ads.

And by the way, what SPECIFIC plans has Ron Paul laid down that he would do as president?
Abolish the education system?
Abolish the IRS? (Without a specific plan to replace it.)
Abolish the Federal Reserve?
Those are nice sweeping little rabble-rousers to get the Ron Paul crowds cheering, but I don't hear much in the way of specifics of how these would be done without further wrecking the country. Romney addresses many of these issues in a more careful and lucid way, for which you demonize him, despite that he offers more specifics than Paul.

What's a guy to think, when you never have anything good to say about Republicans or Fox, and never seem to have any criticism of the Democrats and the liberal media, despite how they are deceitfully bringing destruction on us like has never been seen before.

For somebody who's interested in cutting the federal debt down, I would think you would be more interested in some specifics with Romney's tax plan. Romney's math doesn't add up and I could see it greatly adding to the debt.

You going to make me post all those sources that shows cutting rates/flattening rates creates increased income and, therefore, reduces the deficit again? I mean, I've been posting them on and off for years now. Haven't read them at least once?

It's also been firmly established at this point that even if we taxed "the rich" at 100 percent the national debt "would continue to explode."

The deficit is caused by spending. In this case, Obama's spending. If anyone's math doesn't add up it's the president's.

Adding to what G-man said, there are several economists who have endorsed Romney's plan, and say Romney's plan does add up.

I'm not naive enough to think any politician's plans stated during a campaign add up perfectly. No battle plan survives the first day of battle, and all that. Obviously, even the best plans face un-anticipated hurdles. But Romney has a proven record of responsibly managing a corporation for over 25 years, at managing the 2002 Winter Olympics (one of the few profitable Olympic events), and governing Massachussetts from high deficit to a surplus, and then taking over a floundering Bain and making it a strong company again. I think that's a remarkable track record.

As I've stated across multiple topics over the last 10 years, any raising of taxes just results in enabling more irresponsible spending.
As I said prior, if new taxation was used ONLY to pay down the debt, I (and I think most Americans) out of patriotic duty would gladly pay it.
But it's not.
Every dollar of raised taxes seems to result in at least 1.5 dollars spent. And the only way to reign in the rising debt is to not enable further spending.

As G-man has repeatedly pointed out, further taxation, especially in a recessionary/borderline-depression economy, where annual growth has been shrinking every year for 4 years, is suicidally dangerous, and could only further restrain growth, and push us further into recession. When Clinton raised taxes we had significant annual growth. That is no longer the case.

Further, G-man argues (with cases to back it up, in the presidencies of JFK, Reagan, and the early years of W. Bush) that lowering taxes results in more jobs and businesses, and therefore more taxable income, and greater federal revenue.
I was resistant to this idea, but have come to see the wisdom of it. That growth from lowered taxes allows us to pay our debt more so than further taxation.


Finally, Romney (and Ryan, and other Republicans) have put several plans on the table. Obama and the Democrats have not put a credible plan on the table in 4 years. EVEN WHEN THEY HAD ALL 3 BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, with supermajorities no less.
I say give the Republicans all 3 branches, and see what THEY can do.

RAW

You mostly questioned in the McCain one and ended it by mentioning you'd never heard something as beyond the pale as the allegation. There is a big difference between that and saying the other thing is incoherent, rusty knife driving piece that makes you think about Obama's other allegiances and how Democrats would vote for him despite flaming 666s on his forehead. Please don't try to play like those are equal comparisons.



Old stats. How about something that hasn't been on the shelf for over two years. How about stats on how most view them unfavorably? How about recent ones that show one out of every two tea partiers you meet will be an evangelical? How about newer polls and studies showing the Tea Party shifting to being older, more male, and more white? Your case starts to fall apart when you look at where the tea party is trending.



Sociocon or SoCon is short-hand for social conservative, duh. You find that type of stuff outside of the SoCon fold. As for the Tea Party, the group is trending whiter and evangelical. Fact. Just the other week there were several "God and Country" Tea Party celebrations across the country. Many are openly accepting the rebranding as "Teavangelicals". Tea Party groups across that nation held "God and Country" celebrations just a week or so ago.

It may have once been overlap but it is looking more and more like a takeover.



The "petty insults" guy engaging in petty insults. That's hilaritas!!

[quote=Iggy]


Way to shrink the tent, numbnuts.



Must I sign a "God and Country" pledge to be a conservative? If so, fuck it. And, fuck you guys getting people like me on board so you can win fucking elections.



A movement that has become a caricature of itself while wallowing in the hypocrisy of engaging in similar partisan tactics to those they decry the president and his cronies of doing is worth pointing out. Both sides have acted like petulant children for--at least--the past two years. I don't see one side having control of the government in the coming four which means at some point both sides need to quit acting like kids, sit at the fucking table, and work out a god damned compromise that makes them both eat their fucking veggies. Both sides lose, not one or the other, and America wins.



You don't have to be a left-winger to find the Tea Party leaving a bad taste in your mouth. My experience in various TP groups has done that. So, yeah, I call 'em baggers. So. fucking. what?

As for how it relates to Paul, unfortunately there are people with that mindset that are part of the Revolution and self-described Tea Partiers.



D'Souza's quackpot movie is no truer now that it is on dvd than it was when it was in theaters. He may read from Obama's book but the crazy interpretation is all his own creation. Maybe, this is why he and his wife have separated and he is now involved in a bit of a scandal.



So, now it is okay for Republicans because "Obama did it first." Oy vey!



"Oh noes!!! Democrats won't play nice with it so we just won't show it to anybody!!!"

Gary Johnson 2012



Thirty years of consistent thought in speeches, books, and pamphlets are there to answer any questions you may have. You can even get some for free in pdf format over at the Mises Institute library (cheap plug win!!!).



I think there are three types of people not voting for Obama in this election: the loud Obama haters, the Romney's the best we can do so let's shut up and get it over with types, and the why trade one tool for another vote third party crowd. I fall into the latter of those, of course.

So far, I have no Democrats on my slate of votes for Nov 6. They are all either Republicans or libertarians. If Mitt doesn't get elected, I don't think it will be the end of the world. Moodys is saying 12 million (that's Mitt's number) new jobs are forecast regardless of the 2012 outcome. All others point to a slightly smaller but similarly great increase in jobs over the next four years. Considering those are the forecasts, Mitt's "Get America Working Again" is just empty rhetoric unless he means that his 12 million are on top of that 12 million which would mean 48 months of continuous job growth of 500,000 jobs a month (see also, when pigs fly).

Everything else he has said is heard it before and not falling for it again.

So sue me when I don't rave about the bank funded, crony, vulture capitalist being vaunted as the solution to the bank funded, crony capitalist community organizer.

But, just to let you know, I would sign the dotted line for an entire Senate full of guys like Coburn, DeMint, and Paul if they promised to check their social values at the door and focus on only the debt and the economy. There are many of us out here who feel this way. Tell 'em to come a-courtin' anytime they're willing to deal. And, get used to it because it is going to be the new face of the GOP electorate if they don't confine themselves to irrelevance.

Errr...Yeah. *cough*bullshit*cough*

I don't ignore republicans. I am, after all, a republican.

You, on the other hand, are trying way too hard to rationalize voting for a right wing Nader.

You know it's only going to damage the country more, and yet you do it anyway. All in the name of coming across as a typical hardcore Ron Paul retard.

Address the twelve million jobs, please. Else, you've got nothing but Mitten's empty rhetoric.

I don't give a fuck about Romney's projections. I care about the policy he's pushing. And trying to fool me into believing that you actually give a damn about it won't help your case when you've gone far out of your way to condemn the republican candidates for whatever reason you could scrounge. If it wasn't fiscal issues, it'd be social issues. And if it wasn't social issues, you'd go after him for being Mormon.

Or do you honestly believe that Obama's current plan is going to be [as prosperous as/less damaging than] Romney's? I know that's what you're implying, but it flies in the face of your hollow "libertarian" lip-service.

His policy is the same stuff we've heard and never achieved since like Ford. But, no, you're right...it is going to be different this time around.

We've heard of, but never totally achieved, a true free market and elimination of entitlement programs during the 20th century. Does that mean it was/is stupid to labor for such things?

And I notice you dodged the question with some graemlins. You're channeling Prometheus more and more each day.

Actually, Iggy just said recently that the two left wing candidates-Obama and the Green Party person-were more aligned to his presidential voting preferences than Romney. I think that's alone tends to blow any claims of him being a fiscal conservative out the window.

When was the last time a republican president had a balanced budget?

That one at the end, bigger as anyone else's, that's Obama's deficit. All Romney would have to do is take us back to a Bush era deficit and he'd be hailed for cutting the deficit in half.

Obama has already failed. Anyone arguing Romney is worse is simply delusional or disingenuous

I think a good case could be made that McCain would have had a large deficit too because of the recession. When it gets down to it republicans are historically only fiscally conservative when they don't have the presidency. Ryan for example voted for & helped pass a medical expansion that didn't even attempt to pay for itself.

Right in line with the DNC talking points you are trying to pretend the last four years haven't happened. Bush is not the president. Clinton is no longer the last Democrat to occupy the White House. Obama has a record now and it includes an unprecedented level of debt. He, and you, can't keep pretending we don't know how he'd perform on this issue.

As noted above, all Romney has to do as President is be "as bad as Bush" on this issue and he'd be twice as good as Obama.

Can't defend the lemon so shoot the guy pointing out that its a lemon. Good job, guys.

It's been defended, Iggy. MEM and the rest of the Obama supporters just don't want to listen.

You'd have a lot more credibility yourself on this, BTW, if your "pox on both their houses" persona didn't always end up throwing the pox directly on Romney while giving Obama pass after pass....not to mention you admitting you'd vote for either Obama or a green party candidate over the GOP nominee.

The Obama record of failure speaks for itself. Now, I am happy to criticize the guy. Just don't expect me to ramble on about his "communist/socialist/alinksy-ite/anti-colonialist" ways. He's a turd, no doubt. He's just not any of those. His entire re-election campaign, from my perspective, has been just as bad as Romney's campaign. Essentially, I just see him as saying he promises to do in his next four years what the promised and yet failed to do in his first four. His economic vision was built by those who removed the backstop, as I call it, that made the poorly executed deregulation of Wall Street under Dubya possible (see also, Larry "Douchebag" Summers). But, hey, what should one have expected? His campaign was funded and his administration was staffed by his good friends at Goldman-Sachs. Though, it should be note that they are bank rolling Romney with an Obama hedge this time around.

Now, this would probably be the best time to bring up Dodd-Frank. Dodd-Frank is the biggest bunch of hooey pretending to do something about Wall Street that has been seen in quite some time--if ever. As Dodd has been a proven bankster puppet over and over again.

He kinda delivered on his promise of transparency by making sure that all the meetings he doesn't want us to know about took place off the White House visitation books. A very demented deceptive way of doing it but it does a great job of faking the results.

PPACA, for all their howling, is nothing more than a federal giveaway to the insurance companies.

He's done a great job of eliminating the current generation of al-Queda while strengthening their future recruitment drives by escalating and spreading the use of drones throughout the Middle East.

If you listen closely, you can hear the parasites he's allowed to suck the beast dry. I'm just not convinced in the slightest that Romney's brushing away of the parasites is anything more than giving a chance for the vultures to get their turn.

So... the net result of what you advocate is to re-elect Obama.

No sane person could realistically say that Obama will make the next 4 years better than Romney would.
1) Romney would create far smaller deficits (his vice president is the only person to put forward a feasible plan to reign in debt).
2) Romney has a better hope of winning majorities in the Senate and Congress in November, and therefore being able to break the gridlock and get a fiscally/economically responsible plan passed.
3) Romney would pursue American interests in the middle east, and not allow U.S. interests to decay even further.
4) Romney would create pro-business policies, that have a far greater chance of building jobs and business in the U.S., as opposed to Obama's that are preventing the creation of jobs, and driving capital out of the U.S.

And as for your fronting Obama "not being an Alinskyite", what do YOU call a man who used to teach Saul Alinsky marxist principles and tactics of deception to classrooms of Chicago street activists?

To say nothing of Obama's clear "communist/socialist/alinksy-ite/anti-colonialist" ways, that you for some reason mock despite their being way beyond deniable:

• 
  Barack Obama
  
  Valerie Jarrett
  
  Van Jones
  
  Rev Jeremiah Wright
  
  Derrick Bell
  
  Frank Marshall Davis
  
  William Ayers

Romney would be a diseaster with the middle east. Loud political bluster might impress some people (who probably voted for the guy who chose to ignore multiple warnings that Bin Laden wanted to crash planes into buildings) but not me.