U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Willeonge]

Huntsman is still my dark horse.

I liked Huntsman.

[Maharishi]

I liked Huntsman.

Yeah, he was the cream of the crop of the republican candidates. Still a little too right on social issues for me though.

[Catta]

His point is that Republicans are hypocrites when it comes to talking about freedoms. They only want the freedoms they support, not universal freedoms.

As demonized as the most socialist state of Europe is, they still have freedoms that a Republican government seeks to prevent in the US.

This man gets it - incidentally gay marriage is about to be legalized and danish churches cannot deny to wed them.

[Stanton Biston]

I think the Democrats at the state level should pass fair taxation laws that say their states will only contribute as much federal revenue as they receive.

I'm getting kind of tired of financing stupidity in the red states who are all 'anti-socialism' when the bulk of them benefit from the highest dollar value socialist program in the country: the totality of federal spending.

Rates remain the same- Whatever tax collected goes over federal revenue pledged gets kicked back.

Dual purpose, it would drop the tax liability for all the 'job creators'.

[Deleted]

And it's absolutely a limitation of rights. The private store owners no longer have the right to sell large drinks. I no longer have the right to sell them.

California and NYC seem to be pretty shitty places to live in unless you're extremely wealthy. It seems they can't stop regulating.

[Callace]

Why is the corn subsidies never brought up when people want free markets and less government? And less obesity? Does it really have you buy the balls or what?

Pretty much everything in the US is determined by lobbyist money.

[ptwonline]

Everyone I've seen who is voting for Romney in this thread is voting for him because he's not Obama.

That's about the only reason. People who are voting for someone they support outside a 'lesser evil' are going with Ron Paul.

To be fair though, a lot of people will be voting Obama this time because he's not the Republican candidate who will have to kowtow to the crazies of his party to hold power.

In fact, I would bet that a very large number of people who vote either way are not voting FOR candidates or parties, but AGAINST the other one. There are rare cases like Obama 2008, but I don't think that will happen very often.

I definitely feel that way about US politics. On a scale of 1-10, Democrats are a crappy 2.5. Republicans were a 2 though, and post Tea Party they are now a 1. So what other choice would I have except to back the crappy Democrats simply to keep the Republicans out of office? It's basically siding with Stalin in order to stop Hitler.

[Callace]

California and NYC seem to be pretty shitty places to live in unless you're extremely wealthy. It seems they can't stop regulating.

I think the population density is also a factor. It's hard not to be strict when you have so many millions of people living on a small island. I mean, NYC itself has roughly the composition of a prison to begin with. And as for California, it already has a very high population, and as things get worse and worse there, people still keep moving there relentlessly.

---------- Post added 2012-05-31 at 05:29 PM ----------

Huntsman is still my dark horse.

By Dark Horse, you mean "Bizzarro" candidate?

[ptwonline]

California and NYC seem to be pretty shitty places to live in unless you're extremely wealthy. It seems they can't stop regulating.

Gov't comes in and regulates once people make it abundently clear that they are unable to self-regulate and are being harmed as a result. For example, seat belt and helmet laws. If people can't put up with a minor inconvenience to mitigate obvious risk of brain damage or death, that tells you a lot of what you need to know about how well self-regulation works.

It's not always people's fault though. Sometimes they are victims of misinformation or pseudo-frauds. For example, forcing restuarants to show calorie and fat levels of their foods to help inform consumers better. The latter are frequently shocked when they see the actual numbers.

[Lenonis]

In other words, you support this? I'm not sure what is more disturbing - the proposal itself or the veiled support of the proposal under the guise of "Well, something has to be done."

No, I don't support this. It's a step too far. But I also recognize the issue, and also recognize that there is likely not going to be a solution without some level of government involvement. I prefer the carrot over the stick. People should be encouraged and rewarded for being healthy, not punished for making bad choices.

---------- Post added 2012-05-31 at 12:33 PM ----------

The Counter argument

Just for the record, I don't agree with the argument I posted, but I come from an extremely religious and rather bigoted family and that is basically what they believe. "get them before they get us"

[Maharishi]

By Dark Horse, you mean "Bizzarro" candidate?

Nah, I just wish Huntsman had gotten his 15 minutes.

His healthcare plans weren't terrible, at least was pro civil union, wasn't super crazy with his economic plans.

He was a breath of sanity compared to pretty much everyone else other than Romney.

[Callace]

Nah, I just wish Huntsman had gotten his 15 minutes.

His healthcare plans weren't terrible, at least was pro civil union, wasn't super crazy with his economic plans.

He was a breath of sanity compared to pretty much everyone else other than Romney.

He got panned hardcore the second he said that Republicans needed to start acknowledging science in the debates.
I felt sorry for him.

[Maharishi]

He got panned hardcore the second he said that Republicans needed to start acknowledging science in the debates.
I felt sorry for him.

There was only room for one boring handsome mormon ex-governor in the race. There was no angle the media could take that would make an exciting news story, so he made Ron Paul look well covered.

[starlord]

you cant take one example to show that all regulation is bad. theres plenty of beneficial ones too. rather, poorly thought out regulation is bad.

for example, in california breathing the air is (mostly) no longer hazardous to your health because of regulations on emissions.

But things like banning big drinks (and requiring ultrasounds before abortions) are stupid. there are better, more effective ways to achieve the same goals.

[Lenonis]

For example, forcing restuarants to show calorie and fat levels of their foods to help inform consumers better. The latter are frequently shocked when they see the actual numbers.

This is an example of regulation I totally believe in. Companies should be completely open and transparent about what is in their products. Consumers should be informed about the choices that they are making. Some "healthy" smoothies and salads have more calories in them than a burger. There is a lot of deception in the marketplaces and the only counter to it is making information about what is in them accessible and understandable. Which is yet another reason why I think deregulation is a horrible awful myopically nearsighted foolish idea.

Here is an example of what I don't like:
My health insurance plan offers incentives. A couple are universal -- we get additional yearly funds in our HRA if we get an annual wellness exam. We get some money if we fill out a wellness survey blah blah blah. That's great. What I hate is that there are pages of incentives to lose weight, quit smoking, go through rehab, see a shrink, so on and so on. If you live a healthy lifestyle as I do? Screw off, no extra money for you. That is so so so backwards to me. People who are unhealthy should get zip, and the incentives should go to people who maintain a healthy lifestyle. Go to the gym at least twice a week? Here is some money. Life a healthy lifestyle? Here is some money. Are you a fat smoker who sits on the couch all day? Maybe next year.

I'm very disturbed at the idea that I'm going to have to shoulder the financial burden of a fat lazy society with my tax dollars because people are too concerned about someone telling them how to live. I'd be fine with them self-destructing if I didn't have to subsidize it, or if I got a break because I don't use the medical services that they would need.

[Stanton Biston]

California and NYC seem to be pretty shitty places to live in unless you're extremely wealthy. It seems they can't stop regulating.

Yes, I agree. Two of the states with the strongest middle class contingent must be some of the shittiest places to live.

[Catta]

He got panned hardcore the second he said that Republicans needed to start acknowledging science in the debates.
I felt sorry for him.

Felt the same way for Ron Paul when he advocated the golden rule to a republican crowd - it was tragic yet funny... Like when a clown dies.

[Maharishi]

Felt the same way for Ron Paul when he advocated the golden rule to a republican crowd - it was tragic yet funny... Like when a clown dies.

Yeah, it still blows my mind the golden rule got boo'd.

It's similar to Santorum saying the JFK speech made him want to throw up.

[Stanton Biston]

I'm very disturbed at the idea that I'm going to have to shoulder the financial burden of a fat lazy society with my tax dollars because people are too concerned about someone telling them how to live. I'd be fine with them self-destructing if I didn't have to subsidize it, or if I got a break because I don't use the medical services that they would need.

To be fair, many of the people who are fat and expensive were part of a generation or the children of a generation that told them butter lubricated your arteries in Time Magazine.

And smoking has only been universally bad for like ten years- There should be incentives to quit since most of your bad smokers are old. Addiction, blah, blah, blah.

[Catta]

Yeah, it still blows my mind the golden rule got boo'd.

It's similar to Santorum saying the JFK speech made him want to throw up.

Where do you find these people...