The GOP is never anti-war. They are advocating more war in the primaries.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
The GOP is never anti-war. They are advocating more war in the primaries.
What? There was almost nothing useful or intelligent the dude said. He seems like your average lolbertarian.
Are we witnessing the ascent of yet another ABR? Uncommitted closed strongly yesterday by finishing third in the Virgin Islands Caucuses. Perhaps the conservative vote has finally found a palatable alternative to Romney.
Unfortunately, the number of casualties would have to increase exponentially for the public to notice. Otherwise, the economy is handily the most salient issue. Aside from the electoral implications, the shooting is only going to inflame anti-American sentiments and exacerbate the tensions between the Afghan armed forces and their American counterparts. The relationship is probably beyond salvageable, and that is acutely problematic as our primary objective transforms to training and advisement.
jamesinclair
Banned
Thats hilarious.
Whats not hilarious is Romney getting 7 delegates with 132 votes and RP getting only 1 delegate with 112 votes.
Also, uncommitted won in 2008, :lol Doesnt say how the delegates were split though
I just meant that it's pretty clear his brain functions at a high level. Like, if you gave him an IQ test, he'd probably get a pretty high score. Doesn't mean he can't be completely wrong about a lot of things.
elrechazado
Banned
Two losses make a win.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Newt...ego is just soo fucking big
The sky is blue.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Ticket for what lol. Newt's campaign is dead
Hobbestetrician
Member
He is just making sure it is deader.
This circus just gets funnier and funnier.
Governor of Texas.
Obviously. But Newt's stunningly arrogant. I would not be surprised if he genuinely thinks his candidacy is still viable. Or he could be building his prominence as a conservative statesman. Or he's attempting to sabotage Romney. Regardless, it's evident he's angling to secure Texas and leverage his support in the South for power in Tampa.
speculawyer
Member
If there really was a 'liberal media' they'd be cheering for Newt (or Santorum) as the recent primary threads in GAF tend to be.
:lol Yeah, right. Newt's the only candidate with the tenacity and big ideas to defeat Obama.If there really was a 'liberal media' they'd be cheering for Newt (or Santorum) as the recent primary threads in GAF tend to be.
Whichever A27 was banned doesn't believe the liberal media's lies.
Don't believe the Liberal Media, Newt is still viable lol
PhoenixDark
Banned
But Texans don't even like Perry, and once Romney starts focusing on Texas his money will erase Santorum's lead rather quickly.
lol Newt
Remember, Newt cheated on his wife. He's suffered two divorces. Moreover, his conversion to Catholicism indicates he's confused over his religious identity. I think we're looking at a person who struggles with commitment. And he's using this campaign as an opportunity to prove to the public, Calista, and, primarily, himself that he's capable of keeping a long-term commitment.
SouthernDragon
Member
For all of 5 months, lol
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Don't believe the Liberal Media, Newt is still viable lol
Is his logo seriously a gas pump? This guy is trolling everyone, right?
cartoon_soldier
Member
His only pitch now is that he will have gas at 2.50$/gallon like next day or something.
That's the other thing with Newt. He will do everything the next day after he is President.
Aaron Strife
Banned
You're right that midterms shouldn't be used to predict presidential elections, but I'm pretty sure if Obama were up in 2010 (for whatever reason), he would've lost. The main reason why his chances are better is because of the economy. If that deteriorates to the same point it was at in 2010, Obama could easily lose independents as much as Democrats did in the midterms.
But as I said, Romney is a highly flawed and unpopular candidate, which already tip the odds in Obama's favor. But if Democrats want to make any significant gains in the House and the Senate, they'd still need Obama's approvals to be somewhat high.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Looks like Tuesday will be another long night. Good news for TDS viewers.
Miss numbers in 15 minutes, but I gotta sleep.
Miss numbers in 15 minutes, but I gotta sleep.
Invisible_Insane
Member
That there is some Blitzer-like analysis.
It seems like you're setting the bar for "high intelligence" at grammatically correct sentences.
Aim higher.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Hm, I like this psychological analysis. Makes sense.
Buckle up. It's gonna be a bumpy ride. It's evident Romney's going to win the nomination. Nonetheless, I wouldn't be surprised if he slightly underperformed Tuesday. Southern states with large evangelical populations aren't exactly propitious for him. Still, if he could poach either state, it would hasten the inevitable.
I suspected you'd approve.
RustyNails
Member
Don't understand why mittens is polling so high in the south.
Because they want someone who can beat Obama first and foremost?
j_k_redtail
Member
In the last three months, we've had the Marine urination video, the Koran burning incident, and now this spree shooting. The news out of Afghanistan has been consistently bad for a while.
A question for you all: say you're the President. Is it time for someone higher in the Administration (such as, say, the Secretary of Defense) to lose his job? I don't believe that he is immediately at fault for what's happening, and I have qualms about throwing anyone under the bus for events that they have little direct control over to make a political point. And yes, I understand that there is a desire not to rock the boat during an election year, while the war is in such a fragile state.
But fault and responsibility are two very different things, and it seems clear to me that there are issues at work here that are not being addressed. My impression is that we need to do more than simply offer our condolences. Is there a precedent for this? After Abu Ghraib there were widespread calls for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation, but it didn't happen.
Black Republican
Member
Got Super Tuesday 10/10 last week, see if i can get this tuesday right too 
Alabama -
Hawaii - Romney
Mississippi -
Samoa - Romney
Alabama -
Romney
Mississippi -
Romney
....by a fucking hair <1000-3000
benjipwns
Banned
Rumsfeld wanted to resign earlier, I think 2004, and tried to at some other point but the Bush people wanted him to stay on and then hold off more until after the 2006 election.
Panetta hasn't been in the position for even a year (nor the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) and I'm not aware of anything he's done drastically different from Gates that could be tied to "blame" him for it.
Could get rid of McHugh but does anyone even know who he is?
RoninChaos
Member
What happened to the other a27? Why did he get banned?
Because after 2 months of this farce of a primary they realize they are only ruining the half decent shot they have at removing Obama by letting Rick and Newt compete
If I were president, I'd be loath to dismiss a senior official simply to make a statement. Now, if there were a blatant mistake or malfeasance along the chain of command, then I'd have to hold them accountable. But, aside from the perpetrators, I fail to see how anyone is either at fault or responsible for the recent events. The recent incidents proceed from a military being perilously pushed to its limitations after a decade of multiple deployments in two major wars and enmity between Afghan and American forces. I don't think people realize the palpable antipathy that's developed between Afghan and American forces. Remember, it's not only rogue American soldiers committing horrific attacks. So, how does dismissing an official rectify the problems? The Afghans could not careless. Moreover, it could engender a domestic political backlash. It's a superficial solution. And it would fail to remedy the situation.
They're gradually realizing Romney's victory is inevitable. It's the South, sure. But even they aren't that dense.
gutter_trash
Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...-white-house/2012/03/11/gIQAuhYO6R_print.html
Gas Prices hitting Obama's favorability rating to fall back bellow 50% mark
Gas Prices hitting Obama's favorability rating to fall back bellow 50% mark
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
LOL. I suspect you don't live there.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Serious question, is the fact that SuperPACs are artificially inflating weak candidates or is it the size of these guys ego's (inordinately bigger than even most other Presidential candidates, which is already sky-high) that is really messing this race up for the Republicans by having so much in fighting and mudslinging?
Gingrich and Santorum cannot hope to win states like California, New York or Illinois. They are almost already mathematically eliminated from winning 1144, as well as the fact that should there be a brokered convention, there is no way in hell that it would be either of them, who couldn't rally base support to win in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Virginia and other battleground states, that would leave the convention with the nomination. It is Mitt Romney 95% likely, with 5% of the chance going to the fact that the GOP is functionally retarded and will nominate someone who will embarrass them on the national stage even more. I can only shudder to think a candidate as flawed as Romney really probably is the best choice, but rejected by half the party for some perceived fault in his stance of unimportant issues like abortion (its not going anywhere) or gay marriage (eventually, it will get passed in every state), while forgetting that he is the only one that has any sort of executive or economic experience.
Gingrich and Santorum cannot hope to win states like California, New York or Illinois. They are almost already mathematically eliminated from winning 1144, as well as the fact that should there be a brokered convention, there is no way in hell that it would be either of them, who couldn't rally base support to win in Ohio, Michigan, Florida, Virginia and other battleground states, that would leave the convention with the nomination. It is Mitt Romney 95% likely, with 5% of the chance going to the fact that the GOP is functionally retarded and will nominate someone who will embarrass them on the national stage even more. I can only shudder to think a candidate as flawed as Romney really probably is the best choice, but rejected by half the party for some perceived fault in his stance of unimportant issues like abortion (its not going anywhere) or gay marriage (eventually, it will get passed in every state), while forgetting that he is the only one that has any sort of executive or economic experience.
I do, actually. I say that with a bit of affection.
Probably just Super Tuesday getting Republican voter enthusiasm up. Until the last 1-2 weeks Obama was beating the opposition by large margins.
RoninChaos
Member
That's disapointing. Him and I were going to have a discussion ABOUT the south. Looks like he already took himself out though. Hrm.
gutter_trash
Banned
enthusiasms, enthusiasms.
i don't think there is much enthusiasms happening on the Right.
i don't think there is much enthusiasms happening on the Right.
I wonders where all the enthusiams wents?
People think the president can control gas prices? Dunno.
I'd like to see those polled asked whether they think the president can.
cartoon_soldier
Member
ClovingWestbrook
Banned
lol.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked