The only hope I currently see for a GOP win in November is that none of the three current candidates gets to a first ballot win and a grown-up centrist candidate emerges out of a brokered convention. The prospects are truly that bleak. Romney excites no one; Santorum scars the hell out of almost everyone; and Newt is just a sh*t disturber.
The problem with this idea is that there is nobody who can win the general election who can also excite the base. Unfortunately, the GOP has let the nuts scare away or silence the grown-ups that you and I seek. The base has to realize they are out of touch with most American views on the policies that excite them (other than taxes for the most part) and that that they can't throw a tantrum and demand someone as nutty as they are if they want to beat Obama. Romney (or Huntsman) is that guy. If they can't support him, they don't really want to actually beat Obama. Or they are too stupid to know how to best attempt it.
If we get a brokered convention, chances are even we get an even bigger catastrophe at the general election (Palin?) as much as getting a grown up like Christie- who I like but am afraid is not currently electable.
Wait, you mean that Obama's proposal may force businesses to increase dividend payments before the election, with tax hikes to hit after the election?
As to the AARP folks, I understand that most fall below the $200K/$250K threshold, but if businesses change their dividend payouts, that will affect people at all income levels, correct?
1) Given that it is revenue, I don't see how it passes before or after the election because of Republican opposition. And I have a really hard time believing that this proposal is motivated by the desire to cause temporary side-effects in the dividend market rather than the desire to increase revenue and try to close some of the budget gap.
2) Maybe, maybe not. There'd probably be some businesses opting for stock buybacks, while there'd be others who keep their dividend, but with a dividend sector sell off, you'd be looking at higher yields due to the higher dividend tax because those stocks would be less popular.
It is difficult for me to comprehend how many stupid people there are out there that either don't know or don't care that supporting that retrograde mid-evil chimp Rick Santorum is as good as a vote for Obama in the general election.
I can't imagine how many names I would be called if I referred to President Obama as a retrograde mid-evil chimp.
Other than in the past advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, which would have to go through a long, very uncertain process before adoption, what has Santorum said to indicate he is going to force his religious beliefs on others if elected? For the most part he has expressed his own personal religious beliefs. What's wrong with that? People seem intent on alarming everyone that he would come after you with a pitchfork imposing his religious beliefs on you. Do you think Romney, who is an ardent Mormon, will impose his Mormonism on everyone? Is President Obama imposing Rev. Wright's beliefs on all of you? The reactions to Santorum are way over the top and, if the reactions of some on this board are any indication, it's been effective anti-Santorum.
Other than in the past advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, which would have to go through a long, very uncertain process before adoption, what has Santorum said to indicate he is going to force his religious beliefs on others if elected? For the most part he has expressed his own personal religious beliefs. What's wrong with that? People seem intent on alarming everyone that he would come after you with a pitchfork imposing his religious beliefs on you. Do you think Romney, who is an ardent Mormon, will impose his Mormonism on everyone? Is President Obama imposing Rev. Wright's beliefs on all of you? The reactions to Santorum are way over the top and, if the reactions of some on this board are any indication, it's been effective anti-Santorum.
I would like to state for my own part (don't expect many to agree) that it is enough that he actually believes the things that he does that eliminates him for me. I couldn't even be casual friends with someone who thought (in 2012) that birth control was a bad thing or even slightly controversial or that evolution was controversial in the slightest. Some ideas are so backwards that the very fact that someone thinks them is all you need to know about whether you would support them for office. I don't actually believe Obama or even Romney believe the nuttier elements of the churches they belong to. I just don't. Santorum clear does- he can't stop telling us so. Someone who believes in a literal devil, whose actions and motives he claims to know, is someone who warrants monitoring- not electoral support.
Romney has styled himself a business Republican. Santorum has quite clearly styled himself a values Republican. I am comfortable with the former and and skeeved out by the latter. It is true that Romney was a player in the Mormon church- which it seems is a pre-req for political power for Mormons. I wish that were not true. But I'm willing to overlook it because I just trust that he isn't so literal minded about religion. I'm thinking he is more of the metaphor type of religious person, where as Santorum clearly believes in the rightness of his garbage and worse conflates it with national identity to an alarming degree.
As to the AARP folks, I understand that most fall below the $200K/$250K threshold, but if businesses change their dividend payouts, that will affect people at all income levels, correct?
That diverted dividend doesn't just disappear down a hole you know. The company would typically just put that money into stock buybacks instead, which was raise the value of the underlying stock by the same amount per share.
On edit - TC beat me to it.
Last Edit: Feb 22, 2012 14:07:36 GMT -5 by ksf42001
Other than in the past advocating a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion, which would have to go through a long, very uncertain process before adoption, what has Santorum said to indicate he is going to force his religious beliefs on others if elected? For the most part he has expressed his own personal religious beliefs. What's wrong with that? People seem intent on alarming everyone that he would come after you with a pitchfork imposing his religious beliefs on you. Do you think Romney, who is an ardent Mormon, will impose his Mormonism on everyone? Is President Obama imposing Rev. Wright's beliefs on all of you? The reactions to Santorum are way over the top and, if the reactions of some on this board are any indication, it's been effective anti-Santorum.
Santorum doesn't believe a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. He has openly attacked the holding in the Griswold case, which struck down a Connecticut statute banning contraception.
Is it too much of a stretch to say that President Santorum would seek to appoint SCOTUS justices that would attempt to upend privacy rights, opening the door for complete bans on contraception and abortion, both of which Santorum's religion prohibits?
Last Edit: Feb 22, 2012 14:14:58 GMT -5 by AustinHoya03
In so much as a right to privacy is not explicitly found in the constitution, I always like to as people who gleefully point this out- don't you think that it should be? If they say yes, tell them you'd be fine with an amendment to make it clear if it comes to that and that you are largely in agreement. If they say no, they don't actually believe in individual liberty in any meaningful sense and they have now come out of the despotic closet so that we see them for what they are: America-haters. There are of course plenty of disgusting regimes around the world they could relocate to who also don't recognize a citizen's privacy which is of course the essential step in failing to recognize the idea of citizenry itself.
views on social policy are considerably to the right of almost anybody under the age of 70 with college degree
Although I agree with you on the majority of social policy issues, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of folks under 70 with college degrees who are Santorum fans out here in the middle of the country.
views on social policy are considerably to the right of almost anybody under the age of 70 with college degree
Although I agree with you on the majority of social policy issues, it should be pointed out that there are plenty of folks under 70 with college degrees who are Santorum fans out here in the middle of the country.
Just two quibbles. Around the definitions of the words "plenty" and "college." ;D
All right guard, begin the unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism.
Is it too much of a stretch to say that President Santorum would seek to appoint SCOTUS justices that would attempt to upend privacy rights, opening the door for complete bans on contraception and abortion, both of which Santorum's religion prohibits?
Probably not given that he promises to do so as part of his platform on his website, which makes Ed's argument stunningly ridiculous.
I couldn't even be casual friends with someone who thought (in 2012) that birth control was a bad thing or even slightly controversial or that evolution was controversial in the slightest.
Evolution does remain controversial, or in many cases, people just don't care.
"On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way."
In so much as a right to privacy is not explicitly found in the constitution, I always like to as people who gleefully point this out- don't you think that it should be? If they say yes, tell them you'd be fine with an amendment to make it clear if it comes to that and that you are largely in agreement. If they say no, they don't actually believe in individual liberty in any meaningful sense and they have now come out of the despotic closet so that we see them for what they are: America-haters. There are of course plenty of disgusting regimes around the world they could relocate to who also don't recognize a citizen's privacy which is of course the essential step in failing to recognize the idea of citizenry itself.
That's a pretty big step to say that one who doesn't believe there is (or should be) an explicit right to privacy in the constitution somehow rejects "the idea of citizenry itself" (whatever that means). The bill of rights does a pretty good job of protecting individual liberties.
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
I couldn't even be casual friends with someone who thought (in 2012) that birth control was a bad thing or even slightly controversial or that evolution was controversial in the slightest.
Guess it would be kind of hard to go to Georgetown, with all those darn Catholics running around.
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
Oh I'm well aware of those numbers DFW- and yet still mortified because of what they say about our countrymen's ignorance. In a similar story, 46% of Americans don't know what country we declared independence from. There is no limit to the embarassing statistics we could cite about how little half of our countrymen know that is very basic stuff in other modern countries. What's worse, when it comes to ignorance of the world outside our borders, most seem to be proud of their idiocy. But we hope for better in our friends from top universities...and our leaders. Don't we?
I couldn't even be casual friends with someone who thought (in 2012) that birth control was a bad thing or even slightly controversial or that evolution was controversial in the slightest.
Guess it would be kind of hard to go to Georgetown, with all those darn Catholics running around.
Wasn't hard at all. Just about everyone I knew, whether raised Catholic or not, was having a magnificent time testing the efficacy of Santorum's Devilish birth control devices. And I personally doubt that a single of the many friends I still have from my Georgetown days would be stupid enough to think Creationism has any value whatsoever. For that matter, I'm not sure a single Jesuit priest at Gtown right now does.
Oh I'm well aware of those numbers DFW- and yet still mortified because of what they say about our countrymen's ignorance.
The numbers below the fold tell a more interesting story. Support for evolution remains lowest among: the elderly (31%), the churchgoing (24%) and the high school graduate (24%): Santorum's core base right now.
By contrast, Jon Huntsman went after the younger, college-educated GOP audience...and you know where that got him.
Guess it would be kind of hard to go to Georgetown, with all those darn Catholics running around.
Wasn't hard at all. Just about everyone I knew, whether raised Catholic or not, was having a magnificent time testing the efficacy of Santorum's Devilish birth control devices. And I personally doubt that a single of the many friends I still have from my Georgetown days would be stupid enough to think Creationism has any value whatsoever. For that matter, I'm not sure a single Jesuit priest at Gtown right now does.
Guess it depends on what "value" you're talking abuot when you refer to Creationism.
""He has to control the paint. It's not his choice, it's his responsibility, it's his duty, it's his obligation." Bill Walton on Roy Hibbert.
