Most Republicans happy with GOP field

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

topsemag55

In theory, it seems like Romney shouldn't win due to his flip flops and his position on healthcare and what not, but I still think he is the favorite for several reasons.

1. He has alot of money to work with.

2. He is seen as the most electable. As Obama seems more and more vulnerable, I think the desire to win among Republicans will become stronger and stronger.

3. The presence of many conservative candidates fragments the far right vote, thus harming his challengers (who are far right) and benefiting him.

Etc.

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't walk in....invade a country....topple the government.....and leave the country to insurgents. Granted Iraq should be stable by now.....but you can't just unilaterally leave until that is assured.

LJS9502_basic

aside from that "responsible" point, who the hell are we to dictate to other nations who they should or should not have governing their lands?

inb4 logic is subjective.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Note: I'm not talking about this specific case but in general the way flip flop has been handled since the Bush-Kerry election.topsemag55

Kerry really doesn't have anything on Romney as far as flip flopping is concerned.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you can leave whenever, the argument is when or if we want to.

surrealnumber5

aside from that "responsible" point, who the hell are we to dictate to other nations who they should or should not have governing their lands?

inb4 logic is subjective.

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

As nutty as Perry seems, he does make the field more exciting and he does give the party a good political performer without coming across as flawed as Bachmann. He's flawed in his own ways, but I think he's more electable than Bachmann.

Palin is getting stupid with her "announcement". She said that she was going to announce in August and now she's gonna announce September? :roll:

It's getting pretty obvious that she's just trying to tease the media for coverage.

I'm not surprised that Hunstman's negatives crept upward. He has essentially antagonized the Tea Party by pretty much calling them out their lunacy and irresponsibility, which is awesome for some of our perspectives, but not for many voters in the Republican party, voters that Hunstman needs to win.

However, if Hunstman starts trying to court these voters, he's going to have to flip flop and he'll lose his appeal instantly and will simply become a less politically seasoned Romney. Hustman is pretty much in a lose-lose position IMO and I think people who still think he'll win are not living in political reality.

GreySeal9

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

Yeah, you're probably right, but I do think that he'd lose his appeal. That he stays away from the base-pleasing rhetoric is pretty much the reason that some people support the guy. If he turned into get another Tea Party pleaser, those people would probably be disgusted.

If he's trying to set himself up for 2016, I don't know that he's doing a good job of that. To set himself up, he needs to get more notice even if he doesn't win.

It's all about balance. Romney, while a more partisan rhetoric-prone than I'd prefer, is pretty close to the happy medium. In 2016, Huntsman will have one advantage: he won't have to attack an incumbent to stand out from the rest. Alternatively, he won't have an incumbent to attack, but that suits his style anyway. The Tea Party seems to be a fad, and may be gone by then. That said, I do not think he is generating name recognition.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

topsemag55

I think any gutsiness on his part was negated by the pure stupidity of the comment.

I mean, treason? Really? :roll:

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You can't walk in....invade a country....topple the government.....and leave the country to insurgents. Granted Iraq should be stable by now.....but you can't just unilaterally leave until that is assured.

LJS9502_basic

Isn't the war in Iraq a bit of a catch 22 though? Our prescence there (often causing civilian casualties) just makes a large amount of the population hate us and breeds a new generation of terrorists. I don't see how it's possible to "win".

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] Well, our enemy in Afghanistan is the Taliban, who if they rise back to power will let Al-Qaida right back in again. Obama, could have ended Afghanistan quicker if he had wanted to, but he didn't. To be honest, he should have pulled all troops out of Iraq by now.topsemag55

i wish only one party played these games, but much like expanding the government, both parties do it but only one party champions it.

this plan is not crazy at all.....

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="surrealnumber5"] you can leave whenever, the argument is when or if we want to.

JML897

Isn't the war in Iraq a bit of a catch 22 though? Our prescence there (often causing civilian casualties) just makes a large amount of the population hate us and breeds a new generation of terrorists. I don't see how it's possible to "win".

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Leaving whenever is not the responsible thing to do....LJS9502_basic

aside from that "responsible" point, who the hell are we to dictate to other nations who they should or should not have governing their lands?

inb4 logic is subjective.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Leaving whenever is not the responsible thing to do....LJS9502_basic

Isn't the war in Iraq a bit of a catch 22 though? Our prescence there (often causing civilian casualties) just makes a large amount of the population hate us and breeds a new generation of terrorists. I don't see how it's possible to "win".

That's what I meant by winning. You avoided the whole point of my post to argue semantics.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Actually, I don't think that a change in tune for Huntsman w/ respect to simply rhetoric would necessarily mark him as a "flip-flopper". Huntsman doesn't need to flip on actual issues the way Romney did. However, it's kinda late for him to change things up this late into the election. He may be setting himself up to fill Romney's shoes in 2016. (if Romney doesn't win this round, he's done)

coolbeans90

Yeah, you're probably right, but I do think that he'd lose his appeal. That he stays away from the base-pleasing rhetoric is pretty much the reason that some people support the guy. If he turned into get another Tea Party pleaser, those people would probably be disgusted.

If he's trying to set himself up for 2016, I don't know that he's doing a good job of that. To set himself up, he needs to get more notice even if he doesn't win.

It's all about balance. Romney, while a more partisan rhetoric-prone than I'd prefer, is pretty close to the happy medium. In 2016, Huntsman will have one advantage: he won't have to attack an incumbent to stand out from the rest. Alternatively, he won't have an incumbent to attack, but that suits his style anyway. The Tea Party seems to be a fad, and may be gone by then. That said, I do not think he is generating name recognition.

Yeah, that's true. He'll be more free to simply lay out his positions instead of having to dance around his "Obama problem".

I think he would improve his name recognition if he would engage more directly with the other candidates. He made a stab at that with his "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy comment," but it still was kinda indirect.

I think the continued existence of the Tea Party will depend on the course the economy takes. I think they thrive on angst about the economy.

Then again, even if times of economic uncertainty, people are starting to really dislike the Tea Party, so maybe a sour economy is not really helping them anymore and they'll just fade away. Hopefully.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

topsemag55

The thing is, I would imagine that most conservatives would rather Romney than Obama. Sure a number of people may be less motivated to go out and vote, but most are quite disgruntled with the man currently sitting in the oval office. This holds especially true for those on the further right. Conversely, independents don't necessarily harbor the same level of contempt for Obama, and Bachmann might be seen as an equal or lesser alternative. It is my opinion that the number of independents which could be lost by a polarizing candidate is greater than the amount of people who find Romney significantly less appealing than Bachmann or Perry.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JML897"]

Isn't the war in Iraq a bit of a catch 22 though? Our prescence there (often causing civilian casualties) just makes a large amount of the population hate us and breeds a new generation of terrorists. I don't see how it's possible to "win".

JML897

That's what I meant by winning. You avoided the whole point of my post to argue semantics.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Yeah, you're probably right, but I do think that he'd lose his appeal. That he stays away from the base-pleasing rhetoric is pretty much the reason that some people support the guy. If he turned into get another Tea Party pleaser, those people would probably be disgusted.

If he's trying to set himself up for 2016, I don't know that he's doing a good job of that. To set himself up, he needs to get more notice even if he doesn't win.

GreySeal9

It's all about balance. Romney, while a more partisan rhetoric-prone than I'd prefer, is pretty close to the happy medium. In 2016, Huntsman will have one advantage: he won't have to attack an incumbent to stand out from the rest. Alternatively, he won't have an incumbent to attack, but that suits his style anyway. The Tea Party seems to be a fad, and may be gone by then. That said, I do not think he is generating name recognition.

Yeah, that's true. He'll be more free to simply lay out his positions instead of having to dance around his "Obama problem".

I think he would improve his name recognition if he would engage more directly with the other candidates. He made a stab at that with his "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy comment," but it still was kinda indirect.

I think the continued existence of the Tea Party will depend on the course the economy takes. I think they thrive on angst about the economy.

Then again, even if times of economic uncertainty, people are starting to really dislike the Tea Party, so maybe a sour economy is not really helping them anymore and they'll just fade away. Hopefully.

He can't declare flat-out war with the evangelical side of the party.

I think slowly establishing a name as a level-headed candidate might not be a bad long-term strategy. But, we'll see. Perhaps there is a reason why we can't have nice things.

Give it a few years, and freshman will be the establishment. I imagine the economy will be fine, and unemployment somewhat less. (although there may have been permanent increases to the amount of structural unemployment that the U.S. isn't ready for)

In any case, time will tell.

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] The war was won long ago. It's now about making sure the Iraqi Government is stable.LJS9502_basic

That's what I meant by winning. You avoided the whole point of my post to argue semantics.

I thought it was pretty clear what the main point of my post was.

We're still in Iraq basically to lessen terrorist influence and we're trying to stabilize the country.
However, our mere presence there leads to more fighting. The collateral damage caused by us being there makes more people hate us. Inevitably some of these people who hate us will end up fighting us.

I won't use the word "win" this time. In this situation how are we supposed to make the country stable?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

It's all about balance. Romney, while a more partisan rhetoric-prone than I'd prefer, is pretty close to the happy medium. In 2016, Huntsman will have one advantage: he won't have to attack an incumbent to stand out from the rest. Alternatively, he won't have an incumbent to attack, but that suits his style anyway. The Tea Party seems to be a fad, and may be gone by then. That said, I do not think he is generating name recognition.

coolbeans90

Yeah, that's true. He'll be more free to simply lay out his positions instead of having to dance around his "Obama problem".

I think he would improve his name recognition if he would engage more directly with the other candidates. He made a stab at that with his "I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy comment," but it still was kinda indirect.

I think the continued existence of the Tea Party will depend on the course the economy takes. I think they thrive on angst about the economy.

Then again, even if times of economic uncertainty, people are starting to really dislike the Tea Party, so maybe a sour economy is not really helping them anymore and they'll just fade away. Hopefully.

He can't declare flat-out war with the evangelical side of the party.

I think slowly establishing a name as a level-headed candidate might not be a bad long-term strategy. But, we'll see. Perhaps there is a reason why we can't have nice things.

Give it a few years, and freshman will be the establishment. I imagine the economy will be fine, and unemployment somewhat less. (although there may have been permanent increases to the amount of structural unemployment that the U.S. isn't ready for)

In any case, time will tell.

Yeah, he can't declare ware on them, but he doesn't have to do that to more directly engage with other candidates (meaning that he doesn't have to make comments like his evolution comment). Directly challenging other candidates on their levels of extremism would make him more visible since he could engage with a high profile candidate like Perry and thus focus some of the attention that Perry is getting onto himself, making moderate Repubs and independents remember him as the dude that took on Perry.

The bolded part made me laugh. I always like the a good "why we can't have nice things" comment. :P

I think any gutsiness on his part was negated by the pure stupidity of the comment.

I mean, treason? Really? :roll:

GreySeal9

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Leaving whenever is not the responsible thing to do....LJS9502_basic

Isn't the war in Iraq a bit of a catch 22 though? Our prescence there (often causing civilian casualties) just makes a large amount of the population hate us and breeds a new generation of terrorists. I don't see how it's possible to "win".

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

topsemag55

Well it's one thing to criticize a Fed Chairman's actions, it's another to basically accuse him of treason. I don't think that takes guts, I think that takes stupidity.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Well it's one thing to criticize a Fed Chairman's actions, it's another to basically accuse him of treason. I don't think that takes guts, I think that takes stupidity.topsemag55

What are the actual implications of that metric, though? Inflation hasn't been all too extraordinary. Oil rose in price relative to everything else. I doubt that deflation would change that. It would cause other issues, though.

Also, isn't capital punishment applicable for capital crimes?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Well it's one thing to criticize a Fed Chairman's actions, it's another to basically accuse him of treason. I don't think that takes guts, I think that takes stupidity.topsemag55

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Yeah, but governors in general don't have much experience with foreign affairs, and they tend to be elected. I somehow doubt that will be key on the election. Economy will. The only issue Romney flipped (abortion, gay marriage) on that really matters in this election is health care -- and states rights provides a legitimate defense. A point of weakness, absolutely. But, Gallup's poll the other day put Romney ahead of the other two candidates in a head-to-head with Obama. I can only see Perry or Bachmann performing worse in the future, as I can see them alienating a portion of the voting block as time goes on. People pretty much know Romney by now, and I don't see his numbers changing much unless he drastically alters his public perception.

In my opinion, he's the best option we have. (at least of the three)

chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] Bachmann is trying to appeal to a broader cross-section of conservatives, but she might have a problem with independents. Perry maybe more so, but I have to admit he had guts to say what he did about Ben Bernanke.:lol: Never saw a candidate go after a Fed Chairman before.DevilMightCry

No, accusing someone of treason unjustly is much worse than saying a cop is stupid. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Well it's one thing to criticize a Fed Chairman's actions, it's another to basically accuse him of treason. I don't think that takes guts, I think that takes stupidity.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Well it's one thing to criticize a Fed Chairman's actions, it's another to basically accuse him of treason. I don't think that takes guts, I think that takes stupidity.chessmaster1989

No, accusing someone of treason unjustly is much worse than saying a cop is stupid. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

I didn't realize Sarah Palin was still relevant to society.

I'm saddened by this.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Still not as bad as Obama calling a cop stupid without any facts. The DevilMightCry

No, accusing someone of treason unjustly is much worse than saying a cop is stupid. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

Actually yes, if you had been serious about it you would have just made an incredibly stupid comment.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Yes, but reducing money supply (according to some schools of thought, though not all) has a similar contractionary effect. As CB pointed out though, inflation isn't particularly an issue for us right now, whereas economic growth (/unemployment) is. Our focus right now shouldn't be on controlling inflation, but on stimulating growth and reducing unemployment.topsemag55

Except it isn't the reason why gas prices are rising. (speculation, OPEC, etc.) Targetting the gas price with monetary policy, in my opinion, seems to woefully neglect the larger picture of acceptable aggregate inflation levels as well as growth.

And gas is about $3.20, now. A lot lower than it has been.

EDIT: actual numbers will vary by region

What are the actual implications of that metric, though? Inflation hasn't been all too extraordinary. Oil rose in price relative to everything else. I doubt that deflation would change that. It would cause other issues, though.

Also, isn't capital punishment applicable for capital crimes?

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No, accusing someone of treason unjustly is much worse than saying a cop is stupid. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

chessmaster1989

Actually yes, if you had been serious about it you would have just made an incredibly stupid comment.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Yes, but reducing money supply (according to some schools of thought, though not all) has a similar contractionary effect. As CB pointed out though, inflation isn't particularly an issue for us right now, whereas economic growth (/unemployment) is. Our focus right now shouldn't be on controlling inflation, but on stimulating growth and reducing unemployment.coolbeans90

Except it isn't the reason why gas prices are rising. (speculation, OPEC, etc.) Targetting the gas price with monetary policy, in my opinion, seems to woefully neglect the larger picture of acceptable aggregate inflation levels as well as growth.

And gas is about $3.20, now. A lot lower than it has been.

EDIT: actual numbers will vary by region

with the fractional reserve system once that money is out it will grow many times over its current size increasing the money in circulation a few fold

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] The whole Federal Reserve printing money and secrecy is treasonous. There... I made a horrible statement :rolleyes:DevilMightCry

Actually yes, if you had been serious about it you would have just made an incredibly stupid comment.

Sorry, agree with you on what?

I have other problems with Rick Perry, this "treason" comment isn't even close to the main reason I would never vote for him.

Except it isn't the reason why gas prices are rising. (speculation, OPEC, etc.) Targetting the gas price with monetary policy, in my opinion, seems to woefully neglect the larger picture of acceptable aggregate inflation levels as well as growth.

And gas is about $3.20, now. A lot lower than it has been.

EDIT: actual numbers will vary by region

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

What are the actual implications of that metric, though? Inflation hasn't been all too extraordinary. Oil rose in price relative to everything else. I doubt that deflation would change that. It would cause other issues, though.

Also, isn't capital punishment applicable for capital crimes?

topsemag55

And do you think that the growth losses caused by contractionary monetary supply will be offset by the lowering of oil prices? I would imagine that it would take a significant hit to the money supply to alter the price of gas.

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Actually yes, if you had been serious about it you would have just made an incredibly stupid comment.

chessmaster1989

Sorry, agree with you on what?

I have other problems with Rick Perry, this "treason" comment isn't even close to the main reason I would never vote for him.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="DevilMightCry"] Most Americans agree with me though. I don't dispute that Perry was wrong by saying it, but I don't make a big deal about. At this ponit in time Bush's dog would make a better President than the current.DevilMightCry

Sorry, agree with you on what?

I have other problems with Rick Perry, this "treason" comment isn't even close to the main reason I would never vote for him.

And do you think that the growth losses caused by contractionary monetary supply will be offset by the lowering of oil prices? I would imagine that it would take a significant hit to the money supply to alter the price of gas.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

And do you think that the growth losses caused by contractionary monetary supply will be offset by the lowering of oil prices? I would imagine that it would take a significant hit to the money supply to alter the price of gas.

topsemag55

This begs a few key questions:

1) How useful was QE at promoting growth and preventing deflation

2) How significantly did the drop of the index affect the prices of oil (and gasoline) Also, the opposite quesion: how much will a targetted rise in the index lower oil prices?

3) How much will the contractionary monetary policy restrict growth

Regarding the third question, merely because a policy is slower in the implementation process doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect. (albeit shocks are less likely, I would imagine) There is a relationship between the amount of currency in supply with growth and the rate of inflation.

[QUOTE="topsemag55"] It would depend upon how much he reduced it by and how fast. Imagine how much it would help consumer spending if gas fell to $2.99 a gallon. Or back to $2.75 or so, where it was before all this mess started.rawsavon

how are things going mr. raw? you rarely show your self around these parts any more

[QUOTE="topsemag55"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

And do you think that the growth losses caused by contractionary monetary supply will be offset by the lowering of oil prices? I would imagine that it would take a significant hit to the money supply to alter the price of gas.

coolbeans90

This begs a few key questions:

1) How useful was QE at promoting growth and preventing deflation

2) How significantly did the drop of the index affect the prices of oil (and gasoline) Also, the opposite quesion: how much will a targetted rise in the index lower oil prices?

3) How much will the contractionary monetary policy restrict growth

Regarding the third question, merely because a policy is slower in the implementation process doesn't mean that it doesn't have an effect. (albeit shocks are less likely, I would imagine) There is a relationship between the amount of currency in supply with growth and the rate of inflation.

[QUOTE="rawsavon"][QUOTE="topsemag55"] It would depend upon how much he reduced it by and how fast. Imagine how much it would help consumer spending if gas fell to $2.99 a gallon. Or back to $2.75 or so, where it was before all this mess started.surrealnumber5

how are things going mr. raw? you rarely show your self around these parts any more

I'm happy. I'll be voting for either Bachman or Perry. :DThe-Apostle

Please, for the love of God, do not do that...this coming from a Texan.