Am I the only one who blames the Republicans for another 4years of Obama?

[zsdersw]

Fiscal responsibility is not desired by a majority of voters, so neither party will deliver it.

Most people who say they want the federal government cut don't think the truly expensive things should at all be cut. Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, the military... these are sacrosanct to most people, even people who describe themselves as Tea Party members/supporters.

Sorry, folks.. these are the facts.

 

[zsdersw]

Given the militant influence of the Tea Party movement over the past 4 years...what reason is there to think he's right?

Many Tea Party favorites lost in 2012.

 

[2timer]

Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when they aren't in power.

Haha ouch. No, actually the Republicans track record is: create widespread public fear and alarm using lies and distorted facts. Then use strong arm tactics and false patriotism to demand war in justification of "national security." Finally, when war is achieved, spend over $400 billion dollars and run up the deficit. Destructive results achieved.

Oh, and cut taxes on the super wealthy and pharmaceutical companies, then blame it all on the next guy.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Yeah -- they're "militant" because the GOP isn't in power. I believe I said that already.

I think Jon Stewart put it best: "Republicans don't want limited government; they want government limited to Republicans".

 

[thraashman]

You are truly insane. I long for past times when you would have been under lock and key.

dr. paul is a nut.

You know there's something crazy going on when you have me agreeing with both boomerang and michal1980 in the same thread.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Many Tea Party favorites lost in 2012.

That's true...but it will be interesting to see how the 2014 election plays out.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

santorum wouldn't have been the nominee, remember him along with all the other candidates enjoyed brief surges where they were the flavor of the month. Ron Paul would have easily defeated him in the debates since Ron Paul has actual ideas and supports the Constitution while santorum just spouts out talking points and rhetoric. He barely offered any real ideas during the time.

Paul received less votes than Santorum in his own congressional district during the Texas primaries.

Ron Paul would only win if online polls counted.

 

[nextJin]

Ron Paul wouldn't have ever gotten nominated, there is still too much fringe evangelical Christians in the Republican party.

If he had won the nomination he probably would have still lost, the Obama administration would have slammed the newsletters over a D over again no matter how wrong they might have been.

The reason I supported Paul was because some of his ideas forces the Republican party back to sanity. He represented a drastically different vision which has now obviously rubbed of on some of them for the better good of the country.

He was not against gays, basically brought the term liberty back from the dead and forced the issue on fiscal sanity. Along with foreign policy which for me was a big one.

The Republicans lost not because they didn't nominate Paul, they lost because their platform is/was a lost cause.

Obama could have easily been beaten, but no conservative stepped up to lead the party from their own faults. Paul had too extreme views on some things that neither left or right thought best, as Hannity said;

"90 percent of Paul's views are outstanding, but that last 10 percent is so horribly bad it trumps everything else"

I knew Paul didn't have a chance in hell when he was booed in SC for talking about the Christian War Theory.

edit: disregard spelling and grammar, my phone sucks

 

[zsdersw]

That's true...but it will be interesting to see how the 2014 election plays out.

And water is wet.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fiscal responsibility is not desired by a majority of voters, so neither party will deliver it.

Most people who say they want the federal government cut don't think the truly expensive things should at all be cut. Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, the military... these are sacrosanct to most people, even people who describe themselves as Tea Party members/supporters.

Sorry, folks.. these are the facts.

Well...I'll say one thing...as I approach retirement I'm beginning to care a lot less about fiscal responsibility. I've worked all my life and paid a hell of a lot money in taxes and SS...it's high time our youth stepped up to the plate to take a beanball for the team.

"Perspective is worth 80 IQ points." - Alan Kay

 

[zsdersw]

Ron Paul would only win if online polls counted.

Online polls are about as meaningful as "Likes" on Facebook.

 

[fskimospy]

It is always interesting to see conservatives try and rationalize their losses. It is never because conservative policy is bad or ineffective, now it is a conspiracy where the democrats bought everyone off.

Keep thinking that way and you will keep losing.

 

[hal2kilo]

Republicans only care about fiscal responsibility when they aren't in power.

:thumbsup: +

 

[stormkroe]

It is always interesting to see conservatives try and rationalize their losses. It is never because conservative policy is bad or ineffective, now it is a conspiracy where the democrats bought everyone off.

Keep thinking that way and you will keep losing.

I think changing a few of your nouns into 'politicians' would make this a much more accurate statement. Many of the quips in this thread are rediculously interchangeable and we should never give administrations a pass because some buffoon on the other side of the isle did it too.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think changing a few of your nouns into 'politicians' would make this a much more accurate statement. Many of the quips in this thread are rediculously interchangeable and we should never give administrations a pass because some buffoon on the other side of the isle did it too.

Actually, what you are arguing for, while it seem very fair and balanced may in fact be a false equivalency. Peer reviewed studies of differences between conservatives and liberals indicate that conservatives are more delusional than liberals, more defensive about it, and more and more convinced of their delusions when challenged than before. The more the truth is shown to them they just get sicker and sicker. Right leaning libertarians and the right in general seem to share this trait as we can see from those two groups calling each other nuts and amazed liberals finding themselves agreeing.

 

[fskimospy]

I think changing a few of your nouns into 'politicians' would make this a much more accurate statement. Many of the quips in this thread are rediculously interchangeable and we should never give administrations a pass because some buffoon on the other side of the isle did it too.

Give who a pass about what? The Republicans have now won the popular vote in a national election exactly one time in the last quarter century or so. This is after winning it all but once in the preceding 25 years. That sounds like a big problem to me, but so long as they keep blaming people other than themselves, they won't engage in the necessary left moving realignment that they will need. Sure they might win a national election here or there, but their long term prospects look poor.

If you keep blaming the voters and not your ideology, that implies that you don't think you have to change. From a purely selfish perspective it is highly unlikely that the Republicans will ever move far enough left for me to vote for one outside of a local or regional election, so the longer they stay crazy the better in some ways.

 

[Capt Caveman]

dr. paul is a nut.

And the OP is a retard.

 

[Anarchist420]

Obama won because 48% of voters are on the government dole in one way or another. __________________

No, Obama won because Romney got all emotional about people taking welfare (even though he supported the welfare state). Dr. Paul, on the other hand, being cool, calm, ingenuine, and logical would have struck the root rather than getting all emotional by everyone not being taxed the same.

Romney/Ryan wanted lower marginal rates, fewer exemptions, and fewer deductions in the name of "fairness"... he believed that the govt could make taxation flatter because he had faith in central planning. Ron Paul, on the other hand, not being a fiscal statist and as someone who realized that the market wins out long term over the state, wanted what would give the govt the least amount of revenue.

it wouldn't make any real difference if the govt raised the top marginal rate to 100% and that's because the market would work its way around that.

The only logical conclusion that can be made is that taxation is something that inherently cannot be flattened long term, let alone purely flat and Romney failed to realize that.

Even had Romney not been in the GOP nominee race last year Ron Paul would not have won the GOP nomination. Based on the results from many states Rick Santorum would have been the nominee with Newt Gringrich in second and Ron Paul pulling up the rear just like he did anyway.

Be that as it may, Dr. Paul was the only choice the Republicans had if they were smart and had sincerely wanted to defeat Obama. The incumbent will win if he's the same as the challenger, which means Santorum and Gingrich would've lost. Obama campaigned on "change we need" in 08, and people didn't look at his voting record so he won. The Republicans, having their roots in Hamiltonian monarchism, have almost always ran shitty campaigns whereas the Democratic Party was a grassroots party built by people who knew how to campaign well.

 

[Sonikku]

lawl Paul.

The only Conservative with a surefire chance of beating Obama in a general election was John Hunstman. Too bad no one that respectable, no one that willing to work with a president of a party that contrasts his own for the mutual betterment of his country could possibly pass the Republican Primary purity test. The GoP's problem is that the man best suited for winning the Republican nomination is often the man least suited towards winning the actual election, the reason being the party continues to shift further and further away from the reletive moderate stance of the American people.

And when they lose and lose they shall, instead of returning to balance they instead double down and convince themselves they lost because they weren't being Conservative enough. Just look at how "Conservative" Reagan was, and how far the party has shifted away from their champion. If any Repub Senator called for exploding deficits, raising the debt ceiling like crazy,(fiscal responsiblity, lawl) raising taxes on multiple ocassions and argued for Unions right to collective bargaining as Reagan had done, they would not be put on a pedstal, but strung up on a crucifix.

And yet it is not the party, growing more conservative, it's all the media growing more liberal. It's not the party shifting further to the right, it's just the voters becoming increasingly Democrat. It's not that more and more neutrals were actually former Conservatives that stayed the same politically while the party shifted, it's just that Republicans win more with neutrals than ever, etc. Maybe the GoP is too close to this to see they are the ones doing the majority of the shifting. But, until they exercise some of that "personal responsibility" in examing their own missteps and stop blaming everything else under the sun for seemingly having increasingly greater liberal spin in relation to their own constantly shifting views, they will continue to lose the White House.