Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 I'd argue that the perception that Gingrich is intelligent works against him with Republican primary voters. I know that's the leftist meme, but it isn't true. Gingrich's intelligence and ability to articulate how conservativism benefits the average person is something most Republicans value highly. It's the only reason he's still registering in the polls at all. If he'd have been consistent in his views, not had his weird personal issues, and not been an arrogant prick -- none of which has anything to do with his brainpower -- he'd be leading. Republicans don't distrust smart people. They distrust smart people who think they're smart enough to make big government work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Republicans don't distrust smart people. They distrust smart people who think they're smart enough to make big government work. So you trust only smart people who agree that big government doesn't work? That sounds pretty anti-intellectual to me, because it is demonstrably untrue. Social Security works. Medicare works, and is also loved. The armed forces work. The Department of Transportation works. I could go on and on, but the only way to hold the belief "big government doesn't work" means ignoring all of the instances in which it does, which is anti-intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 So you trust only smart people who agree that big government doesn't work? That sounds pretty anti-intellectual to me, because it is demonstrably untrue. Says you. I don't care to rehash arguments on government in general so feel free to hold that opinion. I was simply pointing out that your statement that Gingrich is unpopular because he is smart is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Says you. I don't care to rehash arguments on government in general so feel free to hold that opinion. I was simply pointing out that your statement that Gingrich is unpopular because he is smart is false. Well, you think it is false, yes. You haven't really proven that, except to claim that my statement is a left-wing meme. I could just as easily assert that your declaration that smart people can't make "big government" work is a tired old right-wing hobbyhorse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Wheee! Big red flag at the phrasing "all buddy-buddy with Nancy Pelosi over Global Warming". WTF? I know that Gingrich is generally an unprincipled evil snake, but you'd think that qualities like "listens to actual scientists rather than conspiracy theory nutjobs" and "realises that some issues are - gasp! - worth co-operating over rather than making a big party-line-split hissy fit over" would be viewed in a more positive light? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 10, 2011 Share Posted October 10, 2011 Well, you think it is false, yes. You haven't really proven that, Nothing can be "proven" here, so that's rather meaningless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Republicans don't distrust smart people. They distrust smart people who think they're smart enough to make big government work. Yes, Republicans distrust proof of things they don't want to be true. Wheee! Big red flag at the phrasing "all buddy-buddy with Nancy Pelosi over Global Warming". WTF? I know that Gingrich is generally an unprincipled evil snake, but you'd think that qualities like "listens to actual scientists rather than conspiracy theory nutjobs" and "realises that some issues are - gasp! - worth co-operating over rather than making a big party-line-split hissy fit over" would be viewed in a more positive light? This sums this whole thing up fairly well:http://i54.tinypic.com/e7i7x0.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Yes, Republicans distrust proof of things they don't want to be true. I think this actually comes closer to what I meant, than what I actually said. For example, there's no serious scientific debate that global warming is caused by human activity, or that all living beings developed through the gradual process of evolution, and yet you'd be hard-pressed to find even a single primary candidate who'd go on record supporting either. Part of it, of course, is that these things run contrary to the Republican agenda of shielding the wealthy and appeasing the God Squad, but I think there is a very real suspicion of any conclusion, no matter how well founded, reached by the intelligentsia. You can see this illustrated nicely in the MA Senate race. Scott Brown has been quick to point out that Elizabeth Warren teaches at Harvard Law School, which for some reason is a mark against her with Republicans. You'd think that a Midwest woman of middle-class background, who graduated from public universities like University of Houston and Rutgers and yet rose to achieve a professorship at an Ivy League school would be a Republican-type success story, but you'd be sadly mistaken. She teaches at Harvard, see, which means she is out of touch with average Americans and thinks she's better than you and I. Only those who rise from obscurity to earn lots of money are due admiration; those who achieve academic success are to be viewed with skepticism and suspicion, 'cause that's what education does to folk. It's crazy, but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Only those who rise from obscurity to earn lots of money are due admiration Except not even then. See - Warren Buffet It's pretty simple actually: what is true is decided first based on ideology, people and evidence and facts and all that are accepted and rejected based on that premade assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 You can see this illustrated nicely in the MA Senate race. Scott Brown has been quick to point out that Elizabeth Warren teaches at Harvard Law School, which for some reason is a mark against her with Republicans. You'd think that a Midwest woman of middle-class background, who graduated from public universities like University of Houston and Rutgers and yet rose to achieve a professorship at an Ivy League school would be a Republican-type success story, but you'd be sadly mistaken. She teaches at Harvard, see, which means she is out of touch with average Americans and thinks she's better than you and I. Yes. That's true. Only those who rise from obscurity to earn lots of money are due admiration; those who achieve academic success are to be viewed with skepticism and suspicion, 'cause that's what education does to folk. It's crazy, but there it is. I think that's H.L. Mencken raising his hand in the back of the classroom.... It's not that Republicans don't trust education. It is that they don't trust someone whose experience is limited to academia. Nothing wrong with listening to such people, obviously, and considering their opinions. Just don't give them the keys to the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Progressive Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 What the hell, did Cain became the front-runner for the GOP primary?http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-10-11/cain-soars-as-republicans-hunt-for-someone-to-love.html Also, Joe the Plumber is running for Congress ............. I shit you not!http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1011/Joe-the-Plumber-may-run-for-Congress.-Could-he-win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 Does the Iranian plot to kill a Saudi diplomat while he is on US soil make sense to anyone? Because it doesn't make any sense to me. Why would the Iranians kill someone else's diplomat on US soil? Don't ask me. I'm still trying to get my head around AQ's argument that it was illegal for the U.S. to kill an American citizen. Er, but actually, the reason they may try to kill a Saudi diplomat on U.S. soil is the perception that will make fingering Iran as the culprit less likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 No, that was my argument first. There's nothing wrong with an American making that argument. But AQ??? Uh huh. And Eric Holder knew nothing about Fast and Furious, I'm sure. Excellent distraction. Not following this. Are you saying it really wasn't an Iranian plot, but rather a U.S. plot? I mean, becuase if it really was an Iranian plot, then I can see Holder making a statement. Not going to help him on F&F, though. That one looks real bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 The plot was described as looking like a "Hollywood script", which is exactly what it was because it makes no sense at all. There's just no real politik reason for the Iranians to try to incite the US, Saudia Arabia and Israel all at the same time and all at this time. They had finally gotten off our radar due to our domestic problems and the invasion of Libya. I still don't get your point. Are you saying this plot didn't really exist, and was just manufactured by Holder? As for "inciting" the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, I rather think that they didn't plan on getting caught. On the other hand, if they manage to bump off a Saudi diplomat and have it blamed on the U.S. or Israel, well, I could see how Iran might think that works to its advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 11, 2011 Share Posted October 11, 2011 I still don't get your point. Are you saying this plot didn't really exist, and was just manufactured by Holder? As for "inciting" the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, I rather think that they didn't plan on getting caught. On the other hand, if they manage to bump off a Saudi diplomat and have it blamed on the U.S. or Israel, well, I could see how Iran might think that works to its advantage. Yeah. It's a ridiculous plot, but I don't see how it doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Did Obama's jobs bill get defeated in the Senate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Yes. It got 51 votes, but not the needed 60.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576625383489964452.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279844/senate-blocks-obamas-jobs-bill-andrew-stiles The presumed final vote count of 51-48 is misleading, however, as a number Democratic (or Democrat-aligned) Senators, such as Joe Lieberman (I., Ct.), Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Jim Webb (D., Va.), voted for cloture despite their overriding opposition to the president’s plan. All three said they would not have supported final passage of the bill in its current form. It didn't even have 51 votes. Opposition was bipartisan. Webb is retiring so I guess Manchin drew the short straw for voting yes (although Tester and Nelson are probably more vulnerable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I'm watching highlights of the debate (full disclosure...highlights only...didn't watch). I understand the anxiety on the part of the elites on the right. There is no good candidate at all at this time unless Perry miraculously improves a lot (and I think that's possible. Obama was markedly sharper as the debates went on than he was in the beginning). So again I'd like to ask a question of those who veer towards the GOP: Who, amongst the current candidates, would you choose for the nominee and who would you choose for the President should he or she win? I'm trying to leave you the potential out of picking Romney if you don't like him but believe he is the best chance to beat Obama which would possibly make it worth it. Romney would destroy Obama but I don't know that he would implement a conservative agenda. Obama's only hope is to paint the GOP nominee as stupid/crazy/corrupt, and Romney is none of those. Obama will have to resort to characterizing Romney as an evil rich Wall St. type, but it won't work. There was a pathetic attempt by the White House to leak info about Romney advisers helping them with Obamacare, but nothing came of it. Romneycare is a known entity at this point that's already factored in to primary voters' opinion of him. In the debate tonight Romney was quick with a response to every question and was just hammering away at Obama. All he has to do is articulate the poor results of the policies for the last three years, and that's not hard to do. The metrics speak for themselves. Obama will have to say, "it would have been alot worse and it will be alot worse if you don't reelect me", which is not a winning campaign strategy. Policy wise Cain is my choice, abolishing the current tax code is a must. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfTinyKittens Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Commodore - I agree that we need a drastic overhaul, but this 9-9-9 system is not the way to do it. Trisky - The last polls I saw had Obama defeating every Rep candidate including "generic Rep" or whatever. I don't know that any of these candidates except for Romney would have much of a chance, and I don't think that the Tea Baggers will let Romney get the nomination... although it's leaning more that way, perhaps as the establishment realizes that Perry is essentially unelectable. In any case, the economy has a year to get better. If it does, then Obama wins - I don't think there's any way around it, since Congress is so universally disliked right now I can't see them (and therefore the Republican leadership therein, and by extension the Republican party) getting credit for it. If we stay where we are, or God forbid slide back into recession, then most likely Obama will be thrown out along with both houses of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.