2012 Presidential Race Thread

**Sensei** · 08-31-12, 13:01

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

Hmm..Mao, Stalin or Hitler...which one's most conservative? None of those socialist dictators were conservative or elected, nor are they in anyway germane to this discussion.

One of my good friends, a Mormon, makes over 100k a year at a company he co-founded, and is a HUGE RP fan. I think its a bit of misnomer that RP fans are pot smoking college kids. I went to a RP meeting earlier this year, and there weren't even any college age kids there. No one was talking about supporting Ron Paul so they could smoke pot legally, and this was in Austin which is hippy/college central. Most people just want to be left the hell alone, and stop feeding the beast.

I was not saying that a majority of libertarians are pot heads. Most libertarians probably don't ever touch the stuff. I was saying that many of Paul's college supporters, most of whom are not true libertarians, are pot heads. In other words, Paul was much more popular than the libertarian platform or any other libertarian candidate due to 1) a cult of personality for him as an individual, and 2) a large number of college-aged, single issue voters, who will vote for the candidate with the most liberal drug policies. As for the cult of personality, don't ask me why. I don't see the guy as being all that articulate or having any viable vision for the country. In addition, I don't believe for a minute that he knew nothing about those "newsletters" from the 80's which means that the guy is a racist or tolerated racist views to make a buck (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...FVQ_story.html).

I would have a lot more respect for Mitt if he had said RomneyCare turned out to not be a good idea in retrospect (highest HC costs in the nation), but he didn't, and defended that. He has, as recently as the debates, defended his anti-gun laws he passed. That makes me think he is capable of doing the same thing again, and based on his MA judge nominations he isn't capable of nominating right leaning judges, either. Politically, he doesn't really have a record that distinguishes him from most Democrats. Sure, he was dealing with a far left MA legislature, but he's the one who put his name on those laws not anyone else. Just Obama is responsible for the conditions right now, him using the Republican House as an excuse is the same as saying Romney did the best he could with a Democrat legislature in MA while governor.

Fair critcism

Looking at Paul Ryan's budget plan, and his voting history it's the same ole story. He has a aye vote next to most major legislation I despise, and which should be important to anyone who values their own personal freedom.

Also fair criticism.

Yes I realize my ideology is not popular, and the march of big government will go on no matter who wins under the current two parties. Just like NOW, with a split Congress, and we are still spending over a trillion dollars a year in borrowed money. I find it hilarious the RNC put up a debt clock when Republican's are just as much to blame as Democrats for it.

No they are not. They share some blame, but it is nowhere near the Dems.

My thoughts in red.

**Belmont31R** · 08-31-12, 13:13

Originally Posted by Sensei

My thoughts in red.

Hows that?

When Bush took office the debt was about 5 trillion, and when he left it was around 11 trillion. Just his 2 terms accounts for more than 1/3rd of the total public debt. That doesn't include ANY other Republican presidents nor our GOP House right now, which has overseen about 2 trillion worth of debt for around 8 trillion total. Thats 8 trillion, just since 2001, where we had a Republican president for 8 years, GOP house for 9.5 years, and GOP senate for 6 years (out of 11.5 years). The current public debt is just under 16 trillion...half of 16 is 8.

**chadbag** · 08-31-12, 13:16

Most of the welfare state was built up by the deems; especially during their 40 year run at controlling Congress.

Unfortunately, many in the GOP read that 40 year straight run as validating this welfare state idea and decided that they too can play the same game in a "lite" fashion.

I agree with Sensei that the GOP holds some fault for the huge deficits, but majority likes with the Dem Jack Asses. And now, it is used as an excuse by some that the GOP is just like the Dems so why bother. The GOP platform is markedly different. It takes time for the "status quo" and it will take time for the Tea Party and others to turn the GOP back to where it wants to go. Totally abandoning the GOP will not give us the time it takes to steer the ship back to where it should be and to get rid of the "establishment" who would rather be Jack Asses and just don't know it. (Charlie Crist is one good success story there).

--

**chadbag** · 08-31-12, 13:19

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

Hows that?

When Bush took office the debt was about 5 trillion, and when he left it was around 11 trillion. Just his 2 terms accounts for more than 1/3rd of the total public debt. That doesn't include ANY other Republican presidents nor our GOP House right now, which has overseen about 2 trillion worth of debt for around 8 trillion total. Thats 8 trillion, just since 2001, where we had a Republican president for 8 years, GOP house for 9.5 years, and GOP senate for 6 years (out of 11.5 years). The current public debt is just under 16 trillion...half of 16 is 8.

And where did most of that debt come from? From Democratic programs that are "off limits" and contribute to the debt whether or not they were or are supported by the GOP. Programs passed either during FDR or in the post war 40 year run when the Jack Asses ran Congress (both houses).

Yes, we all know that Bush spent too much. That does not mean it is the GOP way to always do so. Obummer has spent as much as Bush in half the time if you want to compare.

---

**Sensei** · 08-31-12, 13:29

Originally Posted by chadbag

And where did most of that debt come from? From Democratic programs that are "off limits" and contribute to the debt whether or not they were or are supported by the GOP. Programs passed either during FDR or in the post war 40 year run when the Jack Asses ran Congress (both houses).

Yes, we all know that Bush spent too much. That does not mean it is the GOP way to always do so. Obummer has spent as much as Bush in half the time if you want to compare.

---

Bingo:

The debt began its acceleration under Bush due to the GWOT, but the real hammer is the large number of boomers entering Medicare and Social Security. The fact that Romney and Ryan have the only viable plan to curb this spending is the best reason to vote for them - regardless of their past conservative transgressions.

**Belmont31R** · 08-31-12, 13:31

Originally Posted by chadbag

Most of the welfare state was built up by the deems; especially during their 40 year run at controlling Congress.

Unfortunately, many in the GOP read that 40 year straight run as validating this welfare state idea and decided that they too can play the same game in a "lite" fashion.

I agree with Sensei that the GOP holds some fault for the huge deficits, but majority likes with the Dem Jack Asses. And now, it is used as an excuse by some that the GOP is just like the Dems so why bother. The GOP platform is markedly different. It takes time for the "status quo" and it will take time for the Tea Party and others to turn the GOP back to where it wants to go. Totally abandoning the GOP will not give us the time it takes to steer the ship back to where it should be and to get rid of the "establishment" who would rather be Jack Asses and just don't know it. (Charlie Crist is one good success story there).

--

Yes the Democrats are the ones who got the programs started, and the Republicans added to them, and now defend them with vigor. Doesn't matter who started them...it matters now who keeps them going. I find it interesting, that when Medicare Part D was passed, it got little opposition from the right. Most of the opposition was the Democrats saying it didn't go far enough. At any rate the projected cost over 10 years was 750 billion, about 200 billion less (not counting inflation) than ObamaCare. Seems as long as massive Federal expansion of state run health care is done by Republicans it gets a pass, and when a Democrat does it people run for the hills.

The Democrat party was a lot different for much of the time they had a lock on Congress. As the far left Democrats started taking over a lot of conservative democrats became Republicans. The new Democrat party just surrenders things like missile defense to the Russians with a smile while guys like Kennedy stood up to them, and had a "spine". (I wonder if Chris Matthews things Kennedy was a war monger?)

During that time, also, these programs were a lot more affordable. Look at the percentages of Federal spending they consumed. A lot less than now. The baby boomers provided a huge bubble of taxable income, and now that they are starting to retire that bubble is evaporating, and leaving a vacuum of funds no one can really figure out how to pay for. Well they can, but either way its going to sting. Not that I agree with the programs at all, but the issue just keeps getting put off while we amass over a trillion in new debt a year. I don't see where the Romney plan address the next decade's worth of SS and Medicare costs because they are too afraid to tell seniors to go pound sound, and we can't amass another 10+ trillion in debt in 10 years to pay for them.

**Belmont31R** · 08-31-12, 13:34

Originally Posted by chadbag

And where did most of that debt come from? From Democratic programs that are "off limits" and contribute to the debt whether or not they were or are supported by the GOP. Programs passed either during FDR or in the post war 40 year run when the Jack Asses ran Congress (both houses).

Yes, we all know that Bush spent too much. That does not mean it is the GOP way to always do so. Obummer has spent as much as Bush in half the time if you want to compare.

---

I realize who started them. Has nothing to do with the fact "saving" these monster programs is a GOP ideological mission, nor the fact the GOP expanded Medicare to the tune of 750 billion dollars under Bush.

**chadbag** · 08-31-12, 13:48

Originally Posted by Belmont31R

I realize who started them. Has nothing to do with the fact "saving" these monster programs is a GOP ideological mission,

No, it is not a GOP ideological mission. It is an assumed "necessity" in the political environment of the late 20th and early 21st century.

nor the fact the GOP expanded Medicare to the tune of 750 billion dollars under Bush.

Btw, while I disagree with the Medicare expansion (part D or whatever it was called) that was passed, it has come in way under the assumed trajectory of growth and cost so by that metric has been a success. Does not make it right etc. (But at least they got the numbers right and did not sell a $40B cost that really was $400B)

--