U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Illuwin]

Exactly why religion should not mater. Just because you claim that you are of a religion, does not mean you share the ideals of said religion. What religion is being used for in politics, is to either create kinship with voters you would otherwise have no connection with or demonize opponents based on stereotypes of a religion's ideals, which are not necessarily shared by the candidate. It allows a person like Newt to claim he is christian, than demonize Romney for the implied ideals of Mormonism. Newt, who is accused of asking for an open marriage, can demonize a man for being Mormon because it implies he beliefs in multiple wife, despite him having 1, thanks to religion being a political topic. Religion only maters if your vote is based on stereotypes and assumptions.

I agree with you here. Unfortunately this type of attacking sometimes works, although thankfully seems to not be this time around (at least in FL). I wasn't really saying religion defines who he is, but rather in responding to Communion about why, although Mormon ideals in black and white seem a bit offputting, they don't "put me off" of Romney's campaign.

Attack ads and the moronic political landscape aside, it still is perfectly normal to identify with someone based off of their personal life, and it certainly influences the voter base, although we are in agreement that in the scenario you laid out here it's perfectly stupid to stereotype the candidate thusly iand base your opinion of him off of attack stereotypes in totality.

[Kitsunami]

Debate economics and social issue all you want, but Republicans are unarguably better at foreign relations.

Careful with throwing around words like "unarguable".

[Felya]

Exactly. "I am a devout Christian" aka pandering.

Yep, it's both. It works as pandering and as demonizing, as the person I quoted before you demonstrates. It's absolutely counter productive to finding the ideals of politicians. Not every atheist is smart because they don't believe in god, just like not every religious person is an idiot because they do believe in god. In the end what maters is what you believe and not what group you want to associate with and pander to.

[Communion]

Felya420, don't you think it's hypocritical for these self-same politicians to bandy about their religious beliefs for political purposes (i.e. pandering, as noted above), only to later insist that they not be defined by them?

If you don't want the religion card played against you, don't play it yourself when it benefits you. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have all put their religion in play. If it works against them when they don't want, too bad.

Edit:

For a great example of a candidate who dealt with his religion appropriately, see John Huntsman.

[Felya]

Felya420, don't you think it's hypocritical for these self-same politicians to bandy about their religious beliefs for political purposes (i.e. pandering, as noted above), only to later insist that they not be defined by them?

Yes, which is why it should not have been brought up in the first place.

If you don't want the religion card played against you, don't play it yourself when it benefits you. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have all put their religion in play. If it works against them when they don't want, too bad.

Romney's opponents put his Mormon beliefs into play and Gingrich proclaims his, not because he believes in it, but because he sees it as an advantage versus Romney. I'm willing to bet that if Romney had it his way, he would be referred to simply as Christian and not specifically Mormon.

Brag Edit:

I saw Book of Mormon on Broadway last year and it was awesome. Won an at the door lotto to get front row seats... and it was awesome... hasa diga eebowai!!

[Dch48]

I see what Obama said as a sellout to gain power.

[Amontoya86]

If you don't want the religion card played against you, don't play it yourself when it benefits you. Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich have all put their religion in play. If it works against them when they don't want, too bad.

Well said. This not only goes for religion. Look at the last Republican Debate in which the opening question was to Newt Gingrich about his open marriage. He responded "I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate, on a topic like this. I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature, of much of the news media, makes it harder to govern this country. This is as close to despicable, as anything i can imagine." This is coming from the same man that berated Bill Clinton for degrading the sanctity of marriage. Due to his hypocrisy on the subject, any valid points he made (making a candidates love life a political issue) is null and void.

[ishootblanks]

But they became enemies largely because of Israel did they not >_>

I didnt say it would gain you allies - but it would direct less anger towards the US... And you dont even have to cut all ties with Israel just step in saying: hey that shit you just did, that aint okay - something europe tries to do but the US blocks every time

we have been at war with Islam off and on since the early 1800's... about 150 years before Israel existed..

[Pendulous]

Religion is not allowed to be discusses here, so let's lay off the religion talk.

[Deleted]

we have been at war with Islam off and on since the early 1800's... about 150 years before Israel existed..

At war with Islam? Jesus christ, if that's the way you see it no wonder you're fucked.

Just because you're conducting military operations in muslim countries does not mean you're "at war with Islam".

[Allerik]

nerf congress..

sry, this pres race is giving me a headache. never trolled n e where before. This lightened my headache a tad... lol TY

[TreezusSaves]

All of the candidates this year are absolutely appalling. Gingrich and Romney can keep racing to the right as far as they can, but if either of them don't blink soon, they'll be so far out that going back to the center is going to be nearly impossible. Paul and Santorum can't win because no-one with any kind of financial backing wants them in there (and they're losing in the primaries, which is what ultimately matters in the end.) This is going to be a bloody, nasty battle where the winner is only that way because he's bleeding out last. There's no way any of them has a chance of winning a general election, not while they keep attacking each other and feeding Obama things to use against them.

Meanwhile, Obama can spend the next few months taking credit for the gradual recovery of the economy and promoting a positive, hopeful image for the future. Doesn't mean he won't use attack ads, even though the republicans are doing a good job of that against each other, but he can distance himself from what will likely be called bickering and look like the bigger man.

Hopefully 2016 has a better turn-out.

[Felya]

Just because you're conducting military operations in muslim countries does not mean you're "at war with Islam".

Other than bureaucracy, what makes a military operation different than war?

[slackjawsix]

go mitt romney in these times we need someone that doesnt care about the poor clearly!!!

[Gumbo]

Newt is the only candidate that can beat Obama in a debate. Mitt Romney has no depth to him and his message. He is a punch line politician. He is the used car salesman of the GOP. I've been in the private sector and I can create jobs! Yea I can say that too Mitt. Maybe once he lays out the fine details in the debates which he hasn't done I will think more of him. You will be electing an amateur like Obama was if you voted for him. That's my opinion.

[slackjawsix]

Other than bureaucracy, what makes a military operation different than war?

a war is "A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." while a "military operation is activity by a military or naval force" the dif is a military operation isnt against a nation or a state it can be used to describe armed conflict against a group not a state

[Illuwin]

Newt is the only candidate that can beat Obama in a debate. Mitt Romney has no depth to him and his message. He is a punch line politician. He is the used car salesman of the GOP. I've been in the private sector and I can create jobs! Yea I can say that too Mitt. Maybe once he lays out the fine details in the debates which he hasn't done I will think more of him. You will be electing an amateur like Obama was if you voted for him. That's my opinion.

No politician, in history, including Obama, has ever given a detailed plan or outline in a debate style format. It's not possible in the amount of time or the format of the conversation presented.

Refer to the candidates individual websites for detailed plans on any talking point.

[Wells]

Technically the US needs a state entity to declare war on.

Historically you don't declare war on pirates and the like because formal war affords the enemy all kinds of rights and privileges that are only supposed to be given to "honorable" enemies.

[Felya]

Newt is the only candidate that can beat Obama in a debate.

Romney beat him in Florida debates by simply responding to Newt, by claiming Newt was guilty of every negative he can come up against Romney. Newt can't survive his own past... He was in a bi-partison investigation on ethics, which Ron Paul voted for as one of his first 5 votes in congress.

[Deleted]

Other than bureaucracy, what makes a military operation different than war?

With military operations I also meant wars (such as the Gulf War). But either way, my biggest problem was with him claiming that the US "has been at war with Islam on and off the last 200 years".