|
[ Log In ] [ Register ]
"Question for the conservatives"
On 7/31/2011 at 6:03:30 PM, Ostromite started the thread:
I absolutely won't vote for any Republican in the next election, so my only interest in their upcoming primaries is whether or not they'll put up a fight against Obama. However, I am interested in what the conservatives on this board think of the candidates who've thrown themselves in the pool, officially or unofficially? Who do you want to get the nomination? Who do you think actually will?
As far as I'm concerned, the candidate list looks like this:
Michele Bachmann
Herman Cain
Rudy Giuliani
Jon Huntsman
Sarah Palin
Ron Paul
Tim Pawlenty
Rick Perry
Mitt Romney
Rick Santorum
Nobody else stands a snowball's chance in hell of even getting close.
Msg #1: On 7/31/2011 at 7:52:33 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
Rick Perry.
Huntsman is a liberal and possibly even a Manchurian candidate so to speak. Bachmann, Cain, Palin & Santorum are pretty much the same person -- Palin is just the most famous. I don't agree she's stupid like the media has painted her but she has been so raped in the public media by liberals that she's smart to be using her fame to make money as a pundit.
Giuliani is just trying to remain relevant. He couldn't keep any sort of lead after gaining momentary frontrunner status for the '08 election and he is even less well relevant now.
Ron Paul is a joke and a dangerous man.
Tim Pawlenty is ineffectual.
Funny that you included all those 2nd tier candidates but left off Gingrich. He's a joke as well.
Mitt Romney would be my second choice. He was the last, best hope against McCain last time and even though he's got Romneycare and his Mormanism to contend with, he's still the best 2nd option.
The nominee will be either Romney or Perry, unless someone like Christie changes his mind and gets in.
Msg #2: On 7/31/2011 at 7:55:11 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
And you ought to vote for whoever it ends up being to keep us from another 4 years of this tripe.
Msg #3: On 7/31/2011 at 9:36:20 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I agree that Newt Gingrich is a joke, but I'd go further and say that his entire campaign is a scam to boost his own celebrity so he can keep selling books and building his miniature media empire, perhaps intent on landing a talk show gig a la Oliver North and Mike Huckabee.
Also, are you saying that you support Perry, or that you think he is going to win the nomination, or both?
I am not a Democrat and I think Obama has made major errors in his administration that I find almost unforgivable (though they're probably not the same ones you hold against him), but I will not vote for any Republican because I disagree utterly with almost their entire party platform. I don't see it as me being anti-conservative, just anti-Republican, as I think the GOP abandoned the core tenets of real conservativism at least fifteen or twenty years ago. I would still never consider myself a conservative, but I do have a lot of political beliefs that mesh with more traditional conservative thinkers. I think any Republican who can secure the nomination will be forced to toe the line of the neo-conservative politics, though, and that means at least unofficial entanglement with the religious right.
Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 7/31/2011 at 10:40:27 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #3, saying:
Neoconservatives aren't known for religious beliefs. They're typically interventionist foreign policy hawks. It originally comes from a bunch of Trotskyite hippies who turned conservative in their later years. Without the prior liberal background, I'm largely a neoconservative in foreign policy.
Either way, it doesn't matter what they support because we just can't afford any more Obama. I would take Ron Paul over him, though I'd need to drink considerably before and/or after voting for him.
The tea party has been able to reestablish conservative dominance within the Republican party and the economy has decreased the influence that social policy conservatives and foreign policy conservatives have had in the party. The debt ceiling negotiations are illustrative of that. We cannot 'not' increase the debt ceiling but this is the first time that a ceiling has been tied to equal spending cuts, even if they aren't enough to right the fiscal ship.
I support Perry and believe he or Romney will get the nomination, leaving wiggle room for additional candidates to jump in and screw all predictions.
Gingrich has hurt his chances of being able to spin something even on the level of G. Gordon Liddy, who has a talk show and does a lot of gold commercials, as FOX dropped him when he announced his candidacy. Actually, they forced him to announce given his pundit status. He just isn't viable anymore with conservatives. Too many gaffes and too many shows of egotism such as the global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi he recently lied about to try to spin as "opening" debate.
Msg #5: On 7/31/2011 at 10:59:56 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Neoconservatives aren't known for religious beliefs. They're typically interventionist foreign policy hawks
While that's true on paper, my personal experience is that people who tend to call themselves "neo-cons" are often among the first to rally for "traditional" values. I know there's a gulf between them ideologically, but I see a massive overlap between the evangelical conservative community and the affirmed neo-conservatives. In either case, I am dead set against any kind of interventionist foreign policy, and it is largely on these grounds that I don't consider myself an Obama supporter.
Either way, it doesn't matter what they support because we just can't afford any more Obama.
I don't mean this to sound flip, but I wouldn't automatically assume that the Republicans would do better. If it were viable, I would vote for a third party, but it's essentially the same thing as staying home and watching TV. I will almost certainly end up voting for Obama because I would feel like I was violating my own conscience if I didn't go out of my way to keep any of these Republican candidates from becoming President (not that it matters anyway, since I live in New York and our electoral votes go to the Democrats almost without exception).
I don't know if this thread might lead into some kind of political debate, but even if it doesn't, I do want to say that, while I consider myself something of an extreme leftist (by American standards, anyway) and a socialist, my definitions of those words don't mean what most people think they do. I am fiercely devoted to my political beliefs, but I know most other intelligent people are, as well, so if it ever comes across like I'm insulting your ideologies, I apologize in advance because I don't mean it personally.
Replies: 6
Msg #6: On 8/1/2011 at 12:32:00 AM, QuickComment replied to Msg #5, saying:
I somehow doubt that you get a good swath of conservatives to discuss and debate with. Neoconservatives are not largely evangelicals. In fact, if you want to tie some religion or ethnic element, there is a large derogatory correlation of Jewish decent with neoconservatism, especially in leftist magazines and the middle east.
You must adore what we've got going on in Lybia. At least when Bush decided to go into Iraq, we had some kind of multi-decade paper trail to at least provide some kind of justification for it, whether you consider it viable or not. Obama intervened too late for obstinately humanitarian reasons while hypocritically allowing others in the region to get slaughtered (or continue to get slaughtered as is the case in Syria) and blatantly ignoring the Iranian reformers in 2009, some of whom were also killed. It was pure political pandering, just as his 'commitment' to Afghanistan.
Thankfully, as you said and since I disagree vehemently with Obama remaining in office, your vote doesn't count. That being said, no offense will be taken or given. It's all in fun around here.
Msg #7: On 8/1/2011 at 12:55:58 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I somehow doubt that you get a good swath of conservatives to discuss and debate with. Neoconservatives are not largely evangelicals.
I was actually just specifically referring to politicians who call themselves neo-cons, not people in everyday life that adhere to that philosophy. My main point was that Republicans who try to latch onto the neo-conservative vote also try to ally with the religious right, regardless of where their actual loyalties lie, and that burdens them with a lot of obligations in the event that they win.
You must adore what we've got going on in Lybia.
I've gotten into a few arguments with my friends over it, that's for sure. I might support it if (a) we weren't already involved in at least two other major military conflicts, (b) it were actually done in such a way that it literally was just a humanitarian intervention to prevent mass murders, and (c) we actually left after just a few days like Obama had promised. As is, I think it was a ballsy move, but a total betrayal of the anti-war adherents who helped get him elected, and it was the point at which I officially started denouncing him. However, I see no real evidence that a Republican president would be less heavy-handed with the armed forces.
your vote doesn't count.
It's an extremely discouraging fact, but it's one that all New Yorkers have to live with if they're not Democrats. I don't buy the argument that New York City "strong-arms" the rest of the state because all our major cities are overwhelmingly liberal, so much so that it's almost impossible for us to elect a non-Democrat to any federal office other than members of the House. My guess is that liberals in Texas feel similarly.
Msg #8: On 8/1/2011 at 3:06:35 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
Our Libyan involvement, if we absolutely had to get involved (we didn't, and I don't give a shift about Libya), should have been much more heavy-handed, if anything. The reason it's taking so long is that Obama, NATO, et al are attempting to apply minimal pressure to Gaddafi in a misguided attempt to minimize casualties and putting an American/Western face to the conflict. This over-reliance on minimalist, precision airpower cannot accomplish this goal in a timely manner. By pussy-footing (for lack of a better term) around this conflict, we are only ensuring a more protracted war for the Libyans. Hardly humanitarian. On a personal note, my wing is stretched beyond its theoretical limit to support Obama's Afghan surge, counterdrug operations in South America, and now Libya. We can't sustain this for very long, and yet Congress has approved action in Libya for another year, I believe? Insanity.
This is one of the reasons I laughed at people who voted Obama for change. It was so obvious that on so many large issues, his policies would be remarkably similar to Bush. He paid only lip service to closing Gitmo (good in my eyes), ramped up operations in Afghanistan, and has increased our general level of intervention in the world, especially with Libya. Hell, his administration's stance with surveillance and homeland (am I the only one who HATES that word?) counterterrorism is nearly identical to Bush's, if I recall correctly.
Whatever. I don't really follow politics anymore, so I'll probably just vote libertarian.
BOB BARR
Msg #9: On 8/1/2011 at 4:02:09 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
This is one of the reasons I laughed at people who voted Obama for change
I'm honestly shocked at how many so-called liberals still haven't realized that Obama is not markedly different from Bush with regards to foreign policy, which was, for many Obama voters, one of the main problems they had with the Bush administration. I suppose it's a major improvement to at least oust the war criminals who turned the Iraq invasion into a pet project for feeding contractor companies troughfuls of tax money (the absolute single biggest scandal of the Bush administration, in my opinion), but considering that Obama was elected largely on an anti-war platform, his use of military force so far has been inexcusable, and I'm even including in that fold his approval of the assassinations of those Somali pirates and Osama bin Laden.
homeland (am I the only one who HATES that word?)
I despise it as well, and I know I lose automatically here by raising Godwin's Law, but I can't help but think of Nazi propaganda when I hear it, or at least Stalinist propaganda. There's a mild sensation of brainwashing I feel when someone refers to my "native country" as my "homeland," which is a term that carries a lot of emotional weight and should be used only by individuals to describe places where they have deep personal roots. For instance, I would only describe western New York as my "homeland," yet the government has entire departments devoted to protecting "the homeland."
Replies: 10
Msg #10: On 8/1/2011 at 4:59:34 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #9, saying:
Well, I think it is a bit of a stretch to label the Bush administration as war criminals for using contractors. Although I would heavily criticize the extent to which they've been used, I'm inclined to believe that the decisions were made in an effort to save manpower and/or money, or to provide more effective operators, maintainers, and suppliers. I'm not extremely knowledgeable on the subject , though.
And yeah, "homeland" makes me think Soviet Russia. The DHS should be abolished.
Msg #11: On 8/1/2011 at 5:08:07 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Well, I think it is a bit of a stretch to label the Bush administration as war criminals for using contractors
I consider them war criminals for invading Iraq without a congressional declaration of war and torturing people, as well as falsifying the reasons for going to war in the first place (though this last point is really complicated and I don't know as much about it as I should, partly because so much of what actually happened has never been made public). I should also add that I consider Lyndon Johnson a war criminal for precisely the same reason.
The DHS should be abolished.
I don't understand why everything they do can't be covered by the Department of Defense, and I especially don't understand how the Republican party can claim to be the party of small government when the creation of the DHS was one of the largest increases in the size of the federal government since the New Deal.
EDIT: As for the contractors, what I object to most about it is how much more contractors were paid to do the exact same job as the military personnel we already have. I think it's just absurd that we have the world's biggest, ass-kickingest armed forces in the world, but we still pay mercenaries six figures to patrol Baghdad, not to mention cafeteria workers, mechanics, computer technicians, et cetera. Talk about wasteful spending: paying a soldier to do nothing when you've already paid for his training, then paying a contractor to do his job instead for ten times the cost.
Replies: 12
Msg #12: On 8/1/2011 at 5:44:30 PM, Trainwreck replied to Msg #11, saying:
Well, I will choose to abstain from arguing about the reasons for invasion (partially because I'm on my iPhone), but I believe there were good arguments for both sides, and Congress DID approve of it.
As for the contractors, there are various hidden costs you're bot taking into account. For one, yes, they generally get paid much more in direct compensation. Early next year, for example, I should be a sensor operator flying aboard an MC-12; basically similar to a drone sensor operator, except I'll actually be there. Now, if I get out and do that as a civilian over there, I'll probably make around $200k/year.
However, the military incurs a ton of costs training me, providing me stellar benefits, providing and maintaining equipment, etc. that they don't have to do with contractors or mercenaries.
Furthermore, I think there's a lot of misinformation out there concerning military pay and benefits. I like Ben Stein, but he outright lies about the subject when he claims we're paid like fast food workers. My point is that there isn't AS BIG a difference between military pay and contractor pay as many people think.
Finally, we're far from just sitting on our hands when we're not deployed. ;-) There are many global operations other than war going on which almost never receive press (humanitarian, counterdrug, anti-piracy, etc.), not to mention daily duties and training.
PS: why would you oppose the assassination of Bin Laden or the pirates? Both were legitimate targets for the military to engage.
Msg #13: On 8/1/2011 at 6:04:23 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I oppose assassination in basically all situations. The Somali pirates might be a bit different because I'm not too clear on the details of the hostages they had, but for bin Laden, I think it was criminal and imperialistic to just assassinate him. I don't buy all the bogus claims that they tried to arrest him first. All the evidence says that it was a planned assassination, and I don't like the precedent it sets (or the precedent it follows, I suppose, if you consider all the people the U.S. has covertly helped assassinate over the past fifty years, like Che Guevara).
I've been arguing with people about the bin Laden thing for months now because apparently I'm an al-Qaeda supporter and a traitor for saying that he should have been detained at all costs and tried from crimes against humanity. I understand why so many people thought it was the right decision to have Navy SEALs kill him, but I couldn't disagree with it more. We tried the Nazis at Nuremburg and nobody looks back on that as a moment of cowardice or weakness.
EDIT: This isn't a subject I'm terribly interested in arguing about with anyone any more, so I probably won't respond much if you disagree with me. It just boils down to my belief that terrorists are criminals and that they should be arrested and tried, not fought by the military as enemy combatants, which, after ten years of this shit, everybody either fundamentally agrees or disagrees with, and no real argument can persuade either side.
My point is that there isn't AS BIG a difference between military pay and contractor pay as many people think.
I don't really know how the numbers crunch, so I trust your firsthand experience, and I'm not under the illusion that service people are grossly underpaid. I have, however, met a truck driver who was making something like $85,000 every eight months to drive supplies around for KBR or whoever, and I've read similar accounts over and over. It seems terribly wasteful, and even if it's more expensive to employ the military, that's what it's for, damn it.
Msg #14: On 8/1/2011 at 7:47:58 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
Is this worth engaging? Can't decide yet. Just got off work, too tired to refute. Like TW said, if you're so far off the reservation that you think that the Bush administration are war criminals, then it probably isn't worth going over -- even if I'm not on my droid anymore.
Msg #15: On 8/1/2011 at 8:07:04 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Like TW said, if you're so far off the reservation that you think that the Bush administration are war criminals,
If it's any consolation, I don't think the Obama administration is far behind, and acts that I would consider war crimes have happened under basically every President since Johnson (Truman if you want to count the atomic bombs, but that's a huge debate I don't really want to delve into). I also hope it's clear that when I say "war crimes," I don't mean "crimes against humanity," a term I reserve exclusively for genocide and similar horrors. I am as comfortable calling the Bush cabinet war criminals as I am calling Wall Street bankers financial criminals, and it's really not a fringe belief among actual leftists (as opposed to the pseudo-liberals who get labeled "far left" by Fox News).
In any case, it's probably not worth engaging me on it because we won't see eye to eye - whether it's because you think I've gone off the deep end or what - and it would just cause a bunch of pointless chest-puffing. In the end, it would probably just boil down to a fundamental difference between how we think the U.S. should use its military and for what purposes. I'm an extremely political and argumentative person, but I try to keep those two parts of my personality separate because, unlike things like the Bible and movies where I have actual expertise, I don't know any more or less than the average intelligent person about the economy, the war, or what have you.
Msg #16: On 8/1/2011 at 8:19:07 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
and Congress DID approve of it.
I know they did, but my point is that we never officially declared war, which the constitution requires us to do. It wouldn't be a big deal, I guess, if it were just a small operation like that business the USMC had in Panama, but this was an outright invasion of a sovereign country (the questionable validity of its government not withstanding) that has lasted nearly a decade.
I also won't debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq because I'm extremely ambivalent about them. On the one hand, all my research into it has shown almost without a single shred of doubt that the Bush administration knew that the information they had regarding al-Qaeda and WMDs was false, but on the other hand I do think that Saddam Hussein's monstrous treatment of his people was cause enough for foreign intervention. This second point, though, raises another troubling question for me: how dictatorial does a leader have to be before we are justified in ousting him? And another: if we depose one dictator on these grounds, aren't we obligated to depose the rest who are equally or more inhumane?
This is an extremely disturbing problem for me because I'm essentially an isolationist when it comes to our military, but I also think that it is unethical and basically evil to allow foreign rulers to massacre civilian populations when we have the power to stop it. I have never made up my mind on this issue.
Msg #17: On 8/1/2011 at 8:28:17 PM, QuickComment replied, saying:
"it has shown almost without a single shred of doubt that the Bush administration knew that the information they had regarding al-Qaeda and WMDs was false"
Provide me anything?
Msg #18: On 8/1/2011 at 9:23:07 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I don't have links or anything handy, if that's what you mean. If you care to show me evidence to the contrary, I'll read it. I'm not trying to make a claim without evidence, it's just something I've looked into (though not for quite a few years now), and I'm certainly open to the possibility that material I've read is inaccurate and that I'm mistaken.
Replies: 19
Msg #19: On 8/1/2011 at 9:37:09 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #18, saying:
Proving a negative is difficult, if not impossible. You don't default to assigning nefarious intent. Well, then again, if what you know about George W. Bush comes from a liberal clique then perhaps you do. I might take you up on it later.
Msg #20: On 8/1/2011 at 10:33:22 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
My opinion on the matter comes from a lot of varied reading and documentary watching that I did over the course of several years as a journalism student, and the reason I'm not posting any of it is that I don't have the time or patience to look up dozens of news articles and short films that I haven't looked in at least two years. I have no "liberal clique" that I get my information or politics from, aside from a handful of excellent writers that I like.
Replies: 22
Msg #21: On 8/1/2011 at 10:35:21 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
Speaking of Gingrich, he just made a complete ass of himself again.
Msg #22: On 8/1/2011 at 11:05:01 PM, QuickComment replied to Msg #20, saying:
If you're a journalism student, you're surrounded by a liberal clique. What conservative writers do you regularly read?
Yeah, Gingrich is a stooge. It's too much fun to check to see if it's true.
Msg #23: On 8/1/2011 at 11:27:59 PM, Ostromite replied, saying:
If you're a journalism student, you're surrounded by a liberal clique. What conservative writers do you regularly read?
That's a really unfair assumption to make. The journalism program I got my degree from had the least politically biased college professors I've ever had or met (except for the hard sciences), and the student body varied greatly from very liberal to very conservative.
I suppose saying I read old William F. Buckley stuff wouldn't count, but I'll be perfectly honest and admit that I eventually stop reading most conservative writers once I encounter one too many pieces I simply can't reconcile my own conscience with. It's not a matter of judgment or anger, just simply not wanting to spend so much time reading things I disagree with entirely. I likewise don't read much by film critics I don't like, unless there's a specific point of theirs I want to mention in my own writing.
As for liberal writers, I don't really know who counts as "liberal," but I read Chris Hedges, Christopher Hitchens, and Markos Moulitsas.
By the way, one of the writers mentioned above is a troll response. Guess which one!
In all honesty, I spend so much time watching movies and reading film criticism that I don't have time to even watch the news everyday, much less follow any blogger or op ed writer closely. I mostly just read whatever people post on my Facebook or on forums I visit.
EDIT: Regardless of how many of Gingrich's Twitter followers are fake accounts, the funniest part to me is that he would even bring it up in the first place.
Msg #24: On 8/18/2011 at 12:05:32 AM, Ostromite replied, saying:
I didn't want to start a new thread just for this:
Michele Bachmann: I will get gas under $2
Just some smartass responses:
1. Since the price of gas is determined by the free market, how is she going to forcibly reduce it by half? SOCIALISM.
2. She'll also lower the price of a new car to $500 and make it so you can get a hot cup o' joe, a hamburg, and a shoe shine for a Buffalo nickel.
3. She's from the Jon Kyl school of fact-checking, where all claims involving numbers are not intended to be statements of fact.
4. This is undeniable proof that the Democrats are deliberately raising the price of gas to validate the smugness of their hybrid-driving constituents.
5. If you point out that gas is cheaper now than it was three years ago and that the price drop on inauguration day was an insane dip after three years of high prices, then you are a Muslim.
EDIT: Oh, and one of her staffers was arrested for terrorism in Uganda five years ago.
Msg #25: On 8/18/2011 at 1:33:46 PM, Trainwreck replied, saying:
These really aren't good years for conservatives. Every Republican megastar is an anti-intellectual empty-shirt/skirt. It's interesting to see so many women try and run for president; I don't respect a single one of them. They completely reinforce all of the bad female stereotypes out there (because they're all true, of course).
Msg #26: On 8/18/2011 at 11:01:18 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying:
Ron Paul...
runs away from thread
Replies: 27
Msg #27: On 8/18/2011 at 11:19:25 PM, Ostromite replied to Msg #26, saying:
Poor Ron Paul. I really respect his politics and his integrity and I think he's a genuinely honest and well-meaning person, but he would be such an ineffectual and wimpy president. I actually feel bad for him running because, unlike total non-candidates like Gingrich, he actually has a dedicated following that gives the illusion of him having a chance at the nomination. He doesn't, and he needs to just stick to legislation and writing.
He said something really goofy the other day that caught me totally off guard, but I don't remember what it was at all. If anyone has an idea what I'm talking about (I think it was during a debate), I'd appreciate a link.
|
