Steve Forbes: Perry will win the White House

Minoosh said:
I understand what you're saying. I am using "evangelical" in a way I used to avoid, but it has fallen into a looser general meaning that implies a certain voting bloc. In the context of the presidential race, the only reason I parse "evangelicals" as "white" is because I seriously doubt any Republican is going to sway large masses of black voters away from Obama, no matter how fervently they worship.
Click to expand...
And I don't think you can beat the total whackjob moonbattery of a black Pentecostal service, although they have a lot of singing and a really good time. So my point stands, you simply cannot separate "evangelical" into the white fraction and make a serious point.

But yeah, trying to describe the far right fundamentalist group, I more or less know what you are talking about.
 
geni said:
At this point he is the fox news candidate which means that he should be able to effectively turn it into a two horse race with Mitt Romney. As a position thats winnable.
Click to expand...
Is that right?

I had not even considered that point of view.

You could have a point, but I'm not seeing a serious infatuation.
 
mhaze said:
Is that right?

I had not even considered that point of view.

You could have a point, but I'm not seeing a serious infatuation.
Click to expand...

It's not serious infatuation but Michele Bachmann has been quietly dropped leaving just Perry. Oh they have to be nice to Ron Paul because rather a lot of fox viewers like him but they certainly don't want to elevate him to the status of serious candidate. Mitt Romney provides the opposition you need in order to have a race and in any case probably has enough non fox news support to remain a contender without them.
 
Minoosh said:
This is because there is a pendulum effect in politics, swings to the right are balanced by swings to the left.
Click to expand...
I think it's much more like a ratchet effect than a pendulum effect. Swings to the right are followed by ever so slight swings back toward the center such that the next swing to the right carries us even further that way.

As has been pointed out a lot lately, many of Reagan's policies would be considered left of the policies endorsed by the Democratic Party these days.
 
I think ultimately voters are self serving and not altruistic. With the baby boomers at retirement age and after a lifetime of paying towards the social security and medicare "entitlements" a candidate that wants to alter these programs really doesn't stand a chance. Obama in '12 by default.
 
sloinker said:
I think ultimately voters are self serving and not altruistic. With the baby boomers at retirement age and after a lifetime of paying towards the social security and medicare "entitlements" a candidate that wants to alter these programs really doesn't stand a chance. Obama in '12 by default.
Click to expand...

The Republican Base would like to speak with you. They are not self-serving OR in favor of government altruism.

Edit: In fact it is best to say they sincerely believe their positions are best for the country even when it is blatantly harmful to themselves. This is a good feeling to have, imho, because having some self-sacrifice is not a bad quality. Too bad it is so misguided.
 
Last edited:
mhaze said:
irregardless
Click to expand...
is not a word.

Alferd_Packer said:
Steve Forbes also thought John McCain was going to win in 2008.
Click to expand...
Steve Forbes also thought a Steve Forbes candidacy was a good idea in 1996 and 2000.

Minoosh said:
You would have better-informed proposals. Bush got this; most border-area politicians do. I give Perry credit for realism and a nuanced stance. It may not be what the "base" wants to hear.
Click to expand...

When Montreal is conflicted three ways, will you still be talking about "nuance"?
 
Last edited:
cwalner said:
I also agree with you that immigration was one of the things that Bush got right,
Click to expand...
Hola! Bienvenidos! Si, mucho mas! Mi amigo, Vicente!

Remember the Clinton peso bailout? Remember Ross Perot on NAFTA?

Remember Clinton's Department of Immigration and Naturalization announcing the official policy change that no illegal immigrants would be pursued for only immigration charges, but only if they had additional criminal charges? It was Official Open Doors Policy Announcement.

The regular flow quickly began to flood.

Then there was no more INS. There's ICE now...

They are doing what the want to do, regardless of the will of the people.

They have already done what they wanted to do, regardless of the will of the people.
 
JudeBrando said:
Hola! Bienvenidos! Si, mucho mas! Mi amigo, Vicente!
Click to expand...

Pardon, no me gusta enselada de palabras

JudeBrando said:
Remember the Clinton peso bailout? Remember Ross Perot on NAFTA?

Remember Clinton's Department of Immigration and Naturalization announcing the official policy change that no illegal immigrants would be pursued for only immigration charges, but only if they had additional criminal charges? It was Official Open Doors Policy Announcement.

The regular flow quickly began to flood.

Then there was no more INS. There's ICE now...

They are doing what the want to do, regardless of the will of the people.

They have already done what they wanted to do, regardless of the will of the people.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with Bush's immigration policy?
 
Just for fun, I thought I'd mention that Perry's candidacy cratered last night during the debate. In fact, he did so poorly and Obama himself is so wounded that Christie and Palin are now seriously considering getting into the race.

I still say, hello President Romney.
 
Brainster said:
I still say, hello President Romney.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure. When you get right down to it, no one can have any idea about what Romney will do as President. I think that will hurt him at some point.

That said, from what I've seen, Perry's poor performances don't seem to have hurt him much, if at all, in most polls.
 
Last edited:
cwalner said:
And that has what to do with Bush's immigration policy?
Click to expand...
"Clinton's immigration policy" + "Bush's immigration policy" + "Obama's immigration policy" =
JudeBrando said:
They are doing what they want to do, regardless of the will of the people.
They have already done what they wanted to do, regardless of the will of the people.
Click to expand...
 
JudeBrando said:
They are doing what the want to do, regardless of the will of the people.
They have already done what they wanted to do, regardless of the will of the people.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but repeating pablum is not a sound argument. Considering that every one of those president's were elected by the people, saying that their policies are not the will of the people is meaningless and is nothing more than an attempt to make an argumentem ad populum.

If you have any specific criticisms of their immigration policies, I will happy to discuss that, but if you just want to spew pablum, don't waste your time or mine.
 
sloinker said:
I think ultimately voters are self serving and not altruistic. With the baby boomers at retirement age and after a lifetime of paying towards the social security and medicare "entitlements" a candidate that wants to alter these programs really doesn't stand a chance. Obama in '12 by default.
Click to expand...

You err in thinking "alter" is considered only a reduction in the stream of benefits.

In addition, do you understand that ObamaCare reduces medicare benefits quite substantially?

Thus, "Obama in '12 by default" could only be asserted by a blind ideologue.
 
mhaze said:
You err in thinking "alter" is considered only a reduction in the stream of benefits.

In addition, do you understand that ObamaCare reduces medicare benefits quite substantially?

Thus, "Obama in '12 by default" could only be asserted by a blind ideologue.
Click to expand...

You mean Medicare Advantage?
 
mhaze said:
You err in thinking "alter" is considered only a reduction in the stream of benefits.

In addition, do you understand that ObamaCare reduces medicare benefits quite substantially?

Thus, "Obama in '12 by default" could only be asserted by a blind ideologue.
Click to expand...


Actually when you mention "blind idealogue" I think of you. How strange.
Old folks and soon to be retired don't want any harmful change to their "entitlements" from any political group, thus it is Obama in '12 by default. You will just have to cope for four more years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom