DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... GOP continues incestuous relationship with itself

So now the peanut gallery chimes in with a completely different subject on ideas that influenced the Ten Commandments. Jeez

I'm shaking my head that this got 120 replies! 120!

I didn't know that it was that thought-provoking.

That's nothing, if you can just get me and PDR fighting again, it will double!

I'll read that. Thanks for the link.

Which is a big reason why so many left England. King George was also the head of the Church of England, and used that religious platform as a bludgeon.

Don't worry, I would expect PDR, Swish and some others to chime in repeatedly.

I thought the subject was just an innocuous observation on my part, but here it is, more than 120 responses.

I have to admit, I know it got derailed somewhere along the way but I don't know where.

it got derailed when i mentioned gays, ya know, TAX PAYERS, should be allowed to get married.

oh yea, if we can't support tax payers trying to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, then homosexuals shouldn't have to pay taxes, since they are being discriminated against by a religion that once again, is trying to tell people what they can and can't do.

We fight like the Globetrotters and Generals 'compete'.

Let's go ahead and add 'prove' and 'proof' to the list of words he doesn't appear to understand.

(Then again, that probably could've just been assumed.)

From an online poll at Drudge Report:


YOUR VOTE FOR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (Poll Closed)

Bush 4% 18,864 votes

Carson 8% 37,945 votes

Christie 1% 5,726 votes

Cruz 13% 58,844 votes

Fiorina 1% 2,291 votes

Huckabee 1% 6,259 votes

Palin 5% 20,935 votes

Paul 12% 51,770 votes

Perry 1% 6,268 votes

Rubio 3% 14,955 votes

Santorum 1% 3,038 votes

Trump 5% 23,974 votes

Walker 44% 199,095 votes

.......... 449,964 Total Votes

********************

Not a scientific poll, but there doesn't seem to be too much sentiment for the old guard, establishment Repubs.

y'all might be on to something with Walker.

but cruz being in second? y'all better hope he doesn't win the primaries.

Cause the GOP will get slaughtered..AGAIN, for the WH.

They won't run Cruz, but the fact that they let these circus acts parade through their primaries is precisely why they've had troubles the last few presidential elections.

I would love to vote for Rand Paul.

But it seems like the GOP, like you're alluding to, doesn't want actual viable candidates.

they want the circus acts, they want a nut case in office.

All well. See, I was willing to convert, but they picked the wrong guy.

over.

and over.

and over.

They typically tend to end up running their most viable candidate. It's just that the circus of their primaries leaves them having to backpedal hard once they reach the general.

When you have to stand on a stage in a primary debate and answer 'raise your hand if you believe in evolution?', or debate with sideshow acts, or stand next to the likes of Herman Cain while he proudly announces he doesnt know the names of countries, you're going to be playing from behind in a general.

It plagued both Romney and McCain. McCain held his ground a bit in the primaries, but it was all for naught once they saddled him with Palin. He was dead in the water there (though it wouldn't have mattered, Obama's marketing campaign had '08 sewn up)

What is the source of your information or is this just another opinion?

Romney lost because the Conservatives stayed home and Ospenda ran a good campaign in my opinion.

Romney lost because of "47%" as much as anything else. It was an idiotic comment, no matter the audience, and it cost him every bit of momentum he had. Obama got on that comment and never let it go, and it probably cost Romney the election.

Romney lost because of the 47% footage, which is indicative of the larger problem of throwing red meat to a base, but having to turn on a dime once you get the nomination.

Besting an incumbent is extremely difficult, especially when you have to navigate the minefield of dunces he had to go through to get the nomination. Romney wasn't an ideal candidate, either, but despite all that, he did have a viable chance to win.

But once he got to the general, he doubled down in too many regards on the red meat he had been serving up to the chain e-mail crowd, and it killed his chances.

To be fair to him, it's hard to go from having to appease groups that believe Obama is a Marxist born in Kenya, and then turning around and having to back off that nonsense to have credibility in a general. Not an easy tight rope to walk.

Yeah, if Romney would've included something like, 'I'm going to try to get those 47% off of government assistance by helping to create a better business climate for opportunity'…

Or something businessy like that who knows?

It wasn't like what he said wasn't true statistically, but he still shouldn't have said it.

There never really has been. The queer thing about it is that those that draw the least number of votes and who have the most liberal views have the donors with the biggest bucks.

Romney's inability to get large swaths of conservatives to go to the ballot box cost him the election.

Conservatives weren't inspired to go to the polling booth for him.

I don't know how adding 'I'm going to create a better business climate' to an accusation that hordes of veterans and retired or disabled people are freeloaders who view themselves as victims would've helped.

I didn't like Romney (and still don't), but that isn't the reason that he lost the election. He lost because a large portion of what would be considered his voting base stayed home on election day. They saw too little to distinguish him from Obama.

If the GOP nominates someone like anyone named Bush, Christie, Huckabee, etc. - you'll see the same outcome. The GOP's only saving grace would be if the Democrats nominated someone even worse, which they did against Bush the Younger...twice!

In my view, the GOP has to nominate a candidate that is starkly different from the Democratic one or it won't matter.

Walker is highly regarded by many conservatives (despite his views on amnesty for illegals) because he showed himself to be starkly different from Democrats. They tried to oust him 3 times in 4 years and he vanquished them each time. Labor threw everything at him, including the kitchen sink, and lost. That's why he's viewed favorably. If he's the nominee, he'll defeat whoever the Democrats nominate. So would Ted Cruz, who's a firebrand. Rand Paul would as well. Both Cruz and Paul are intellectually superior to anyone the Democrats could nominate and would get slaughtered in debates. It would look like Reagan vs. Mondale again.

As for Romney and the 47% comment. If it's true, why not say it?

because the 47% percent comment is only true in base statistics ONLY.

you guys say it all the time on the football forums: stats don't lie, but they don't tell the whole story.

He disrespected everybody.

because guess who's part of the 47%?

Senior citizens, disabled vets, disabled people in general, etc.

think about it. why would i vote for somebody who basically thinks i'm a peon because I'll be getting VA disability?

Who you vote for somebody who thought you were a piece of crap? i bet you wouldn't.

Only thing I can think is maybe it softens the blow. Gives them a better idea of where he's coming from?

Doesn't matter now.

No, not really. At the time, 47% of all American didn't pay any income tax at all.

Furthermore, the percentage of American households receiving a check written by one or more government entities is now above 50%.

jc

Paul Ryan's First Tax Legislation Adds Nearly $100 Billion To Deficit

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/paul-ryan-taxes_n_6615076.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

WASHINGTON -- The first bills promoted by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as the new chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee would add nearly $100 billion to the deficit over 10 years.

Ryan, a deficit hawk during his time as the chairman of the Budget Committee for the previous six years, made his fame proposing budgets that aimed to dramatically cut domestic spending and balance the budget within a decade.

But in his first legislative act as head of the committee that will be central to expected tax reform efforts over the next two years, Ryan pushed through a package of seven tax cut bills that would add $93.5 billion to the deficit in the next decade.


The largest, a measure that lets small business write off expenses more quickly, would add $77 billion to the deficit.

Other measures would allow companies to inflate the value of food donations (including things like old Twinkies), make it easier to donate retirement savings, and conserve land, among other things.

Although Republicans generally require new expenses to be paid for by cuts elsewhere in the budget, they don't when it comes to tax cuts. As a result, none of the proposed measures came along with savings from another portion of the budget. Republicans also argued that the breaks in question have been enacted every year on a temporary basis -- without any "pay-for" -- and it only makes sense to make the measures permanent.

"We all know that our businesses need certainty to grow," Ryan said. “If these things have been in the [tax] code for a long time, and they’re important provisions, then let’s just keep them in the code."

Indeed, most Democrats have backed the temporary versions of the broadly popular tax cuts, including as recently as December. But they worried that enacting the new measures would not only be a permanent boost to the deficit, but if signed into law would also exclude those loopholes from possible future tax reform efforts -- leaving more pressure to reduce breaks for the middle class, such as child tax credits and mortgage interest deductions, or cut spending.

"If we're going to have any hope of a comprehensive tax reform, we're not going to be able to, on a serial basis, deal with the items that we all agree with, that are the easy stuff, that narrows the range of what we're going to have going forward," said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.).

He added that if Ryan was willing to jettison deficit concerns for the sake of popular tax breaks, Blumenauer would be happy to seek some of his own.

"I will tell you, I'm willing to drop a hand grenade or two in the conversation if you're going to go down this path," Blumenauer said. "Because I've got some things that I'm working on that would be extraordinarily popular. If we're just going to say, 'If it's popular and we like it, we don't have to worry about fiscal discipline,' I'll be there to help fund it."

Blumenauer and others noted that while helping charities and small businesses is popular, the tax cuts under consideration tend to help the better-off, such as companies that have expired but edible food they can't sell or people with huge retirement incomes. And that could come at the expense of breaks that help more people.

"I think it causes a great deal of uncertainty for other Americans who don't have the benefit of being able to give away their retirement money to good causes," said Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.)

“This Republican ploy selects almost $100 billion of favored tax provisions to benefit a small portion of taxpayers by borrowing more money from abroad," Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) told The Huffington Post as the hearing wound down. "Their package eliminates enough revenue to fund life-saving medical research through the National Institutes for Health for more than two years. Instead of a bipartisan commitment to comprehensive tax reform, they continue on a partisan path to promote the privileged.”

But Ryan and other Republicans countered that it's better for individuals to decide how to spend their own money, not the government, and that letting people donate their cash rather than give it to the government helps society, too.

Ryan insisted that he was still committed to seeking tax reform.

"These are consistent with tax reform, these move in the right direction," Ryan said. "We can walk and chew gum at the same time."

Still, Democrats did not accept Ryan's arguments before the measures were approved by the committee on party-line votes. They said making the breaks permanent would only make tax reform harder because it would take important, popular bargaining points off the table.

"Some of us really would like to have a tax reform compromise come out of here, and we hate to see pieces that could be sweeteners for somebody or other given away before you get to that final decision making," said Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

Republicans passed similar measures in the last Congress that would have added more than $800 billion to the deficit over 10 years. The bills did not advance in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But if the full House passes them again this year, they would stand a much better chance in this Senate now that it is under the control of the GOP.

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

___________

hey 40 i thought you said these guys were fiscally responsible?

yes, really. i just gave you a list of different groups of people who fall into the 47%

i guess you ignored that part.

Paul Ryan isn't a fiscal conservative. I'm not certain that he's conservative at all.

hey bro, he is a registered and voted in as a conservative. sorry about it.

I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Did Romney fail to get out a strong conservative vote? Yes, to some extent. But the reality is it's moderate, independent voters who decide elections. About one third are Dems and about one third are GOP. It's that third in the middle that decides elections.

When you say things like his 47% comment, you lose a lot of those people. A comment like that includes disabled people poor working class people. Many poor working class people, especially in the south would tend to vote GOP if their candidate hadn't just lumped them in with those on welfare.

When you state that 47% of the population is against you and make such a broad sweeping statement, you're only left with a 3% margin of error.

When you go too far right in your platform, you lose some independents that you need to win elections. When you go too far left you lose the base. When you do both, you certainly lose elections.

Bro? Are you the Meathead Rob Lowe?

He's voted in as a Republican in a highly Democratic state. That doesn't make him a conservative.

And neither Obama nor Romney got these voters to vote for them.

Romney's inability to get what would be considered his base supporters (i.e., conservatives) to the polls was what cost him the election.



He didn't lump them in with anyone and they would have gotten out to vote for him if he had espoused conservative values. He couldn't because he's not a conservative.

Could one argue that he's closer to being a conservative than Obama? Sure. But you could say that about Karl Marx too.

Reagan espoused conservative values and won in two landslide victories. Romney couldn't espouse them because he doesn't believe in them and never has.



He didn't say that they were against him, but I'm not going to belabor that point. It was his lack of conservative credentials that cost him with conservative voters, not a comment about 47% of people not paying taxes.



Too far right? Mitt Romney?

I have no party affiliation at all. I'm a true independent, but I certainly have conservative, or to be more precise, a classical liberal viewpoint.

I alluded to this once today, but I'm just going to come out and say it now, and I apologize if it offends people who came over from the old board, because I sincerely want you to feel welcome here, but I feel that debate has gone backwards in a lot of senses.

And honestly, I don't mean it as a knock to the other board, as I think our tribe was and easily could still be very much like that, and the separation comes not from being smarter or more knowledgeable, but in challenging the opposition to do so in a way that is self-policed.

I guess that's a long winded way of saying that the people from our offshoot who I used to think were fools now seem sensible by comparison, and the only conclusion I can come to is that despite a canyon of difference in philosophy, we simply trained each other better in a manner of committee.

All that said, I agree with anarchy. Ryan isn't conservative.

He's a GOP avatar.

Did you see that flash? It was the birth of a singularity!

regardless of the reality, when he runs for VP or president, guess what party he's running under?

that you think it matters what he does is irrelavent. His stances on typical GOP party lines makes him a GOP candidate, and thats why they want him to try in the primaries.

Nothing you said has anything to do with him being conservative.

And Ryan would've been a home run candidate for them if he didn't trot out impractical budgets and speak rhetoric meant to incite a base that has a tenuous grasp of reality.

Do you know what the brilliance of the Obama marketing machine is and was? He knew what to say and when to say it, and his handlers did to.

Obama always went to AFL-CIO and said 'I want nationalized healthcare'. The difference was, he had a staff that understood 'this plays here, it doesn't other places'.

If it ends up in print, very few will care. If you can put it on YouTube, that's a bingo.

The difference between the Romney and Obama marketing machine is that the Romney people didn't sweep cameras, because they thought 'people will like this!', whereas the Obama camp had the foresight to compartmentalize.

not really. His policies are anything but conservative. but some of his views? sure.

and you're missing the point: it's not about if he's really a conservative or not. the point is, what party will he be making his bid under?

the GOP flip flops on issues all the time. Ryan is no different. the current pool of candidates aren't that much stronger than in 2012. and Ryan managed to get on the VP ballot....

as what again? thats right: Republican.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Step back and explain again, without trying to refute what I'm saying, but to express yourself.

Let's try this again:

Ryan, by part affiliation, is a conservative. I already know his policies are anything BUT, but thats not the point.

When he runs, or attempts to run, it will be under the GOP Banner.

That's my thought. The guy who said "net neutrality is the Obamacare of the internet" basically lost the majority of people under the age of 35 with that quote alone.