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.
Gingrich- A
Romney, Perry, Paul- B
Santorum- C

Gingrich seemed to be the crowd favorite. Santorum seemed too combative. Romney didn't have a great night. There's another debate on CNN on Thursday. My guess is that Gingrich closes in on Romney in the SC polls over the next few days.

the crowd was a bit stupid
booing that Romney''s father was born in Mexico

I think SC vote will go this way

Romney
Gingrich
Paul
Santorum
Perry

that is bad for both Santorum and Perry
 
What was interesting in last night's debate even tho it appeared that Newt won and got the most applause, and it may move him a only few points in the polls. Newt is so hobbled because of his abrasive persona which makes him so unelectable.

Newt has hard core knuckle draggers the same way Ron Paul has his hard core true believers.

Ron Paul was totally off the rails, incoherent- especially saying Osama should of had due process :he's finished.

Rush is all excited about Newt's performance last night, *belch*.

<>
 
Haha, he was unemployed. You're so funny Mitt. Great money for being unemployed.


Huffington Post

ASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has a new definition of "not much": $362,000.

On Tuesday, the Republican presidential candidate finally admitted that the effective tax rate he has been paying for the last several years is likely below that of middle-class workers, which would also include military servicemembers.

In Greenville, S.C., Romney was asked directly what his effective tax rate is. It was a hot topic of discussion at Monday night's debate, at which Romney repeatedly declined to fully commit to release his tax returns.

"It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything," said Romney on Tuesday. "For the past 10 years, my income comes overwhelmingly from investments made in the past, rather than ordinary income or earned annual income. I got a little bit of income from my book, but I gave that all away. Then, I get speakers fees from time to time, but not very much."

Not very much? According to a report in USA Today, over the course of a year, Romney earned more than $362,000 in speakers fees -- a period during which he joked he was "unemployed."

His rival, Newt Gingrich, said that he made $60,000 per speech -- defending himself against the charge that he served as a lobbyist for Freddie Mac, for which he was paid over $1.6 million for strategic advice.

Romney has an estimated wealth of between $190 million to $250 million, according to financial disclosure reports. Upon leaving Bain Capital in 1999, he negotiated a retirement package guaranteeing him a percentage of the firm's profits.

A single worker who earns more than $35,350 in income pays a 25 percent tax rate on earnings above that amount. Many families that earn less than $100,000 per year pay an effective rate of just above that, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Romney's wealthy welfare comes from a loophole in the tax code that taxes long-term capital gains at a 15 percent rate. Private equity executives are then "paid" with capital gains instead of regular income. The executives, such as Romney, then tell the Internal Revenue Service that they were not being reimbursed a salary for work they performed but instead were merely investors reaping the rewards of risk taking. Happily for the executives, any investments that go belly up and lead to bankruptcy and mass layoffs can be counted against the earnings, which amounts to a tax subsidy for failed projects.
 
i'll also put this in the catch-all "gay" thread, but as Romney reiterated his support for opposite marriage at the expense of same-sex marriage just today, and most of the rest of the field continues apace with the naked bigotry of Santorum and Perry, i found this article, and these particular paragraph to be quite relevant to now when the wildly distorted phrase "all children need a mother and a father" is offered up as the only remaining line of defense against SSM:

Gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents," said Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University in Massachusetts who researches gay and lesbian parenting. Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals, Goldberg said. "That translates to greater commitment on average and more involvement."
And while research indicates that kids of gay parents show few differences in achievement, mental health, social functioning and other measures, these kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research. Not only that, but gays and lesbians are likely to provide homes for difficult-to-place children in the foster system, studies show. (Of course, this isn't to say that heterosexual parents can't bring these same qualities to the parenting table.)

[...]

There is very little research on the children of gay men, so Stacey and Biblarz couldn't draw conclusions on those families. But Stacey suspects that gay men "will be the best parents on average," she said.

That's a speculation, she said, but if lesbian parents have to really plan to have a child, it's even harder for gay men. Those who decide to do it are thus likely to be extremely committed, Stacey said. Gay men may also experience fewer parenting conflicts, she added. Most lesbians use donor sperm to have a child, so one mother is biological and the other is not, which could create conflict because one mother may feel closer to the kid.

"With gay men, you don't have that factor," she said. "Neither of them gets pregnant, neither of them breast-feeds, so you don't have that asymmetry built into the relationship."

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

"Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men," she said.


[...]

Children of gay parents also reported feeling less stymied by gender stereotypes than they would have been if raised in straight households. That's likely because gays and lesbians tend to have more egalitarian relationships than straight couples, Goldberg said. They're also less wedded to rigid gender stereotypes themselves.

"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'"



Why Gay Parents May Be the Best Parents - Yahoo! News
 
True, but my point is more about the audience. How many of them will even bother with questioning that statement?

Yeah, sort of my point too. Of course the audience needs 'fact checking' when you're talking about some claim of 16.2% or whatever, or perhaps some claim about some detail regarding a foreign country that no-one from the general public would ever be expected to know - and I know these candidates are shooting all sorts of amazing bullshit out there, at a rate and speed that no amount of 'fact checking' stands a chance of keeping up with - but a statement like that is 'beyond fact checking' because it is just that ludicrous and really shouldn't be slipping past anyone. It should be surprising to think a candidate would just assume their audience is that stupid, amazing to think that his audience actually is that stupid, fucking scary to think that a candidate running for president of the US might actually be that fucking stupid. And be fair - it's not just that Perry might be that fucking stupid, that quote could easily have come from several of the other candidates, or at least, it wouldn't be all that surprising. Perry might genuinely be that stupid. You could imagine it coming from Santorum, but it would probably be because he believes every Muslim is a terrorist or something. And you could imagine it coming from Gingrich, who would absolutely know better but presumably just thinks his audience are absolutely that stupid. Romney and Paul are the only two I couldn't imagine dropping something like that. Some line up.
 
I don't know which I find more disturbing-the fact that candidates are saying such blatantly offensive things, or the fact that the audiences at the debates are cheering what the candidates are saying and booing anyone who dares to point out that what they think is, you know, offensive and cruel.

well consider the source...South Carolina.

A beautiful part of the country, but also red as blood, wine, and coca cola cans.

Anytime you have a debate in a place like this, the moderates are going to pander (Romney), the nuts are going to just be themselves (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich) and the crowd will favor the nuts. And then there's Paul, who seems to be on a level all of his own. Half of the time i like what he's saying, the other half of the time im :hmm:

I give Paul credit for not pandering to anyone and just being who he is. He knows he's not going to win anything, its almost as if he feels his duty is to stand up there and say what he believes just so a large audience will hear it, hoping someday they will agree with him. Im sure he wont live to see that day, unfortunately, but history will probably be kind to him for holding true to his convictions.
 
Ha ha, he was unemployed. You're so funny Mitt. Great money for being unemployed.


Huffington Post

ASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney has a new definition of "not much": $362,000.

Honestly, what is $362k if your net worth is $200-250 million?

I know that might not make a lot of sense, but in reality $362k to him is probably like $362.00 to you and i.
 
What the fuck? Perry actually said Turkey was ruled by Islamic terrorists? That's actually amazing.

Hyperbolic but perhaps prophetic.

Turkey is quickly moving from the Western to Middle Eastern orb of geopolitics. From an ally to Israel in trade, diplomacy, and defense to an unfriendly country. From a secular government to a neo-Ottomanism, Islamic rule. From European liberalism to Sharia law.
 
well consider the source...South Carolina.

A beautiful part of the country, but also red as blood, wine, and coca cola cans.

True...

(South Carolina does look gorgeous, though. I've seen things on TV about some of the more historical cities in that state-I'd like to visit them someday)

Anytime you have a debate in a place like this, the moderates are going to pander (Romney), the nuts are going to just be themselves (Santorum, Perry, Gingrich) and the crowd will favor the nuts. And then there's Paul, who seems to be on a level all of his own. Half of the time i like what he's saying, the other half of the time im :hmm:

I give Paul credit for not pandering to anyone and just being who he is. He knows he's not going to win anything, its almost as if he feels his duty is to stand up there and say what he believes just so a large audience will hear it, hoping someday they will agree with him. Im sure he wont live to see that day, unfortunately, but history will probably be kind to him for holding true to his convictions.

Agreed on Ron Paul.

I just still don't understand why people flock to the nutjobs. You can be conservative all you want, but isn't there a point when you listen to a Perry or Santorum or Gingrich and think, "Wow, this guy's a moron." Why not just go for a moderate who actually still values facts or intelligent conversation, why are the nutcases so appealing?

Seriously? I am so glad I was watching the Betty White birthday show.

I saw that, too. It was nice :). Certainly less headache-inducing, too.
 
Hyperbolic but perhaps prophetic.

Turkey is quickly moving from the Western to Middle Eastern orb of geopolitics. From an ally to Israel in trade, diplomacy, and defense to an unfriendly country. From a secular government to a neo-Ottomanism, Islamic rule. From European liberalism to Sharia law.

you need a better metric

than "friend of Israel". Israel is not always a good friend.
 
Saying that gay parents are better than straight parents is another form of bigotry.

Only if you think females and males, fathers and mothers, are totally interchangeable. Neither possessing unique, distinctive or singularly valuable traits. Neither necessarily missed if absent from the equation.

If you believe that than yes, preference for the traditional family unit is bigoted.
 
Only if you think females and males, fathers and mothers, are totally interchangeable. Neither possessing unique, distinctive or valuable traits. Neither necessarily missed if absent from the equation.

If you believe that than yes, preference for the traditional family unit is bigoted.



here you go, again:

The bottom line, Stacey said, is that people who say children need both a father and a mother in the home are misrepresenting the research, most of which compares children of single parents to children of married couples. Two good parents are better than one good parent, Stacey said, but one good parent is better than two bad parents. And gender seems to make no difference. While you do find broad differences between how men and women parent on average, she said, there is much more diversity within the genders than between them.

"Two heterosexual parents of the same educational background, class, race and religion are more like each other in the way they parent than one is like all other women and one is like all other men," she said.




as ever, it is the quality of the individuals who have chosen to be parents together, not their opposing gender, that is the most important quality in creating happy, stable children.

you know, "content of their character" and all that.

but this is the GOP thread we're talking about. just wanted to point out that Santorum is peddling a line of frothy horseshit.
 
here you go, again:

it is the quality of the individuals who have chosen to be parents together, not their opposing gender, that is the most important quality in creating happy, stable children.

you know, "content of their character" and all that.

but this is the GOP thread we're talking about. just wanted to point out that Santorum is peddling a line of frothy horseshit.

Yes, since it's the GOP thread...

call me anti-intellectual but if it's all the same to you I'm going to respectfully go with common sense, sageness and intuition over "studies show."
 
I mean no disrespect, but I just wish to bring up this regarding the debate over which gender/sexual orientation is fit to be raising kids: WHO. CARES?

Seriously, as long as they're getting love and care and being fed and clothed and sheltered and all that good stuff, WHY does anything else matter? Why are people still so freaked out about this issue?
 
The GOP is so worried about the welfare queens and broken inner-city homes (holmes?) comprised of single-parent minority families gaming the system, you figure they would be really happy to see some two-parent households, even if it's Mark and Steve or Rhonda and Penelope.

Kind of a catch-22 between conservative morality and opinions on minorities.

What's the way out, oh faith-based ones?


call me anti-intellectual but if it's all the same to you I'm going to respectfully go with common sense, sageness and intuition over "studies show."
Does the common sense come down on the side of the earth being 5,000 years old and Jesus riding dinosaurs?
 
Well, it's sort of like the whole deal about how they want people who can't take care of their kids to put them up for adoption...but then don't want a certain portion of the population adopting those kids because, oh, my god, it's two men or two women raising them! The horror!

Very confusing.
 
INDY500 said:
Yes, since it's the GOP thread...

call me anti-intellectual but if it's all the same to you I'm going to respectfully go with common sense, sageness and intuition over "studies show."

"my gut is better than any of that research stuff!"
 
call me anti-intellectual but if it's all the same to you I'm going to respectfully go with common sense, sageness and intuition over "studies show."


common sense, sageness, and intuition tell me that two people who really, really want to be parents and are willing to jump through any and all hoops necessary to do so, while at the same time likely being highly educated and having the means to pursue expensive things like adoption and/or AI, are going to be very, very, very good parents.

but i'm sure the straight kids on Teen Mom will prove me wrong.
 
The GOP is so worried about the welfare queens and broken inner-city homes (holmes?) comprised of single-parent minority families gaming the system, you figure they would be really happy to see some two-parent households, even if it's Mark and Steve or Rhonda and Penelope.

Kind of a catch-22 between conservative morality and opinions on minorities.

What's the way out, oh faith-based ones?



well said :up:
 
True...

(South Carolina does look gorgeous, though. I've seen things on TV about some of the more historical cities in that state-I'd like to visit them someday)

Actually North Carolina is my favorite of the two, with the Blue Ridge Mountains on one end of the state and the Outer Banks on the coast line. Its someplace i could retire.


Agreed on Ron Paul.

I just still don't understand why people flock to the nutjobs. You can be conservative all you want, but isn't there a point when you listen to a Perry or Santorum or Gingrich and think, "Wow, this guy's a moron." Why not just go for a moderate who actually still values facts or intelligent conversation, why are the nutcases so appealing?

To answer your question, i guess, its because half of the base (if not more) are nutcases themselves. Therefore the wingnut candidates are their only earthly option.

I wouldn't necessarily call Santorum or Gingrich morons, crazy or perhaps evil would probably be better descriptions. Perry is a different story though. Maybe he's different off camera or back home in Texas. I suspect he's a very charming and charismatic guy, but the intellect doesn't translate well onto television.
 
Actually North Carolina is my favorite of the two, with the Blue Ridge Mountains on one end of the state and the Outer Banks on the coast line. Its someplace i could retire.

Oh, really?

I have an aunt and uncle who live out there. May have to pay their state a visit someday.

To answer your question, i guess, its because half of the base (if not more) are nutcases themselves. Therefore the wingnut candidates are their only earthly option.

Guess so. It's just still so hard for me to reconcile the fact that people go for those sorts of candidates, even if on some level I know why they do. It just makes me sad.

I wouldn't necessarily call Santorum or Gingrich morons, crazy or perhaps evil would probably be better descriptions. Perry is a different story though. Maybe he's different off camera or back home in Texas. I suspect he's a very charming and charismatic guy, but the intellect doesn't translate well onto television.

Heh, ah, well, I use the word "moron" because, honestly, that's about the most polite word I can think of to use towards those people. There's many more unflattering descriptions, but I'm too nice to say half of them :p.

Perry's a strange bird. He just reminds me so much of Bush, Jr. in so many ways, with his whole Texas persona and such, but...yeah. I remember seeing clips of his speech at New Hampshire a couple months or so ago and thinking, "...mmmmmmkay...".

He definitely does have a charm and charisma about him. Unfortunately, he uses it for things that aren't good, and it comes off kinda creepy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom