GOP Nominee 2012 - Who Will It Be?, Pt. 3

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
:hug: to Mrs Garrison :).

Citing the work of one anti-poverty expert, Santorum said, "He found that even fathers in jail who had abandoned their kids were still better than no father at all to have in their children's lives."
Allowing gays to marry and raise children, Santorum said, amounts to "robbing children of something they need, they deserve, they have a right to. You may rationalize that that isn't true, but in your own life and in your own heart, you know it's true."

Shuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut up. For the love of God, just shut the hell up.

Why in the world is this issue still even something to debate anymore? If in this day and age you're still THAT disturbed by the idea of gays getting married and having kids, clearly you're a complete and total idiot, and I'd love to know how uber-perfect your life apparently must be, then.

At a private boarding school Friday, the Republican presidential candidate's voice grew emotional as he argued that only a man and woman should be able to marry. "Marriage is not a right," Santorum said. "It's a privilege that is given to society by society for a reason.... We want to encourage what is the best for children."

Aw, he got emotional, how touching :rolleyes:.

Yeah. Let's let kids grow up with fathers in prison and mothers who are tied to such scumbags and who make shit choices for husbands and fathers instead of living with two people of any gender in the house (or one person) who loves them dearly and who will tuck them in at night and feed and clothe them and help them with their schoolwork. 'Cause clearly the first option is better.

And if marriage isn't a right, then why get so bent out of shape over something that you see as a simple privilege? Privilege implies that it's not nearly as necessary as it would be were it a right.

I guess apparently Newt Gingrich defended the "sanctity" of marriage at one of the debates recently, too. Please, the next time he does that, can a reporter point out to his face that he's been married three times? PLEASE. I would love for someone on national TV to bring that up right to his face.
 
It's funny that you think that about him but not about Romney.

I think Huntsman seems like a man with integrity, high standards of decency, and real smarts.


..a lot of Liberals like him..
he has gotten a teeny bit of traction in NH..

however, he comes across as stuffy to a most ppl, i think.

you likes his eyebrows, eh?

mitt on the other hand comes across as earnest and optimistic, looking for solutions, huntsman- a boring committee type person.

<>
 
And if marriage isn't a right, then why get so bent out of shape over something that you see as a simple privilege? Privilege implies that it's not nearly as necessary as it would be were it a right.

I guess some people think that only people like them deserve certain privileges. And that they have the right to determine who does and who doesn't. If they start allowing everyone certain privileges then maybe they're worried that they won't be so freakin special any more.
 
I think Huntsman seems like a man with integrity, high standards of decency, and real smarts.

All that may be true, but the cohesiveness and organization of his campaign is right on par with that of a high school student council race.

Not only that, there's a bit too much condescension in a lot of what he says. And he never directly answers the questions at the debates- I mean, a lot of people don't, but especially him.
 
2861U2 said:
All that may be true, but the cohesiveness and organization of his campaign is right on par with that of a high school student council race.

Isn't it pretty much generally accepted that this is mostly just a test run/get your name out there adventure for 2016?
 
Isn't it pretty much generally accepted that this is mostly just a test run/get your name out there adventure for 2016?

1) I highly doubt it. He spent zero time in Iowa, which is a terrible strategy if you're trying to build an organization for next time. Plus, if he can't catch fire in this field, there's no way he'll be able to compete with the likes of Christie, Rubio, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, etc.

2) No, because Mitt Romney will be the incumbent Republican in 2016. :wink:
 
I guess some people think that only people like them deserve certain privileges. And that they have the right to determine who does and who doesn't. If they start allowing everyone certain privileges then maybe they're worried that they won't be so freakin special any more.

Good theory. 'Cause, you know, nothing says, "I'm special!" like nonsensical prejudices and blatant idiocy.

Sigh. Whatever the reason, the whole thing's just stupid as hell.

As for Santorum...

Then he launched into a curious tangent: "I thank God for America that our southern border is Mexico," he said. "And it's not Libya, and it's not Tunisia, and it's not Iran. Mexican culture and American culture is Western civilization, and the basic values and understanding of our laws and our government are based in those Western civilization traditions. That is not the case in Europe, and you're seeing the effects of it. I have nothing at all against people in this hemisphere who want to immigrate."

...um...'kay.

Also, call me crazy, but I REALLY don't think it's a good thing for my potential president to be buying into the "end times apocalypse" hysteria. That whole belief's disturbing enough on its own, to have a possible leader of the free world follow it is chilling on so many levels.
 
That sect of Shia Islam believes in the second coming of a messiah, a second coming that will bring on the apocalypse. Santorum - who believes in the second coming of a messiah, a second coming that will bring on the apocalypse - finds that dangerous. Funny (and, just quietly, 'a plague on both your houses' and all that).

Also, claiming western civilisation as the product of the US and antithesis of Europe is either proving yourself to be beyond stupid, or all too clearly showing that you think your support base is that stupid. I assume with Santorum it's both.
 
^ I think he may have been referring to Europe's non-Western (Muslim) immigrant populations, rather than to where Western culture comes from.
 
Isn't it pretty much generally accepted that this is mostly just a test run/get your name out there adventure for 2016?


Huntsman is the other party's favorite candidate.

Much like Joe Lieberman was the favorite Democrat Candidate if the GOP chose the Dem nominee.

Huntsman will never appeal to the national GOP, there are places where he could win office against the right candidate.
 
That sect of Shia Islam believes in the second coming of a messiah, a second coming that will bring on the apocalypse. Santorum - who believes in the second coming of a messiah, a second coming that will bring on the apocalypse - finds that dangerous. Funny (and, just quietly, 'a plague on both your houses' and all that).



is this true, though? Santorum is a Catholic, and i don't think Catholics are all that into the rapture like most conservative American protestant evangelicals.
 
Most Christians aren't into all the rapture business. That's a very 'US evangelical' thing. But Catholics still have it all coming to a big Michael Bay finale.
 
A decent VP pick for Romney?
not any of the current or past GOP candidates



Romneys ok as the guy who can do a better job on the economy.
Obamas foreign policy is pretty solid.
Romney could use some more heft there, so right now, I would put David Petraeus on his short list.
 
really? i was raised mildly Catholic and this end-of-the-world stuff was never talked about. sure, Christ was supposed to come again and all, but i never had the impression that the CGI budget would be correspondingly huge.

were other Catholics taught about this stuff?
 
A decent VP pick for Romney?
not any of the current or past GOP candidates



Romneys ok as the guy who can do a better job on the economy.
Obamas foreign policy is pretty solid.
Romney could use some more heft there, so right now, I would put David Petraeus on his short list.



i would think they're all going to be after Rubio.

he'll help out with the GOP's Hispanic problem. he'll help with Florida (though he won a three-way election). he's a Tea Party guy (though the Tea Party isn't so popular any more). he's 40. (which might be a strike against him, actually, he'd be *very* young).

it seems like a no-brainer to me.
 
Rubio is not hispanic

Hispanics are illegal aliens stealing jobs, sucking up welfare,
that the GOP want to deport.



he's one of the (Communist-hating) good ones.

and he can speak to the others in a way they can understand. (Spanish)
 
the GOP gets 80% of the White male vote

unless you go into certain districts in NY,

what's up with that? didn't they get the memo?
 
Romney could use some more heft there, so right now, I would put David Petraeus on his short list.

I expect it to be Rubio, but this would be a very interesting pick. He's better than Rubio in a lot of ways, actually.

There was an article on The Daily Caller a few weeks back, and it predicted Petraeus would be asked to be VP and that he would accept. If Rubio is truly not going to accept if asked (which I'm slowly starting to believe may be the case), Petraeus would be a very strong pick.
 
Nicaraguans came to this country fleeing the Communist Ortega

they got their Communist hating asses deported lickety-split



why do white male jews vote aginst their skin color and gender?

Cubans are pampered and privileged, they can not sneak into this country

if they get one foot on the beach, they are on the fast track to citizenship, how can that be called Hispanic, why would any real Hispanic be impressed by pandering more to the already pampered to GOP Cuban base?
F*ck Cuban-Americans they are the most privileged minority, finally an Affirmative Action the GOP can get behind, hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom