TrackerNeil Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Astounding. I fear for your nation now. I think you may have the world's sympathies at this difficult time.Don't fear yet; I don't think this will do much but delay Romney's victory. I would LOVE for Gingrich to be the nominee, but the gods just aren't that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevonicus Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Salt,For good or ill the winner of the SC primary has been the Republican nominee every four years since 1980. I'm disappointed that the Swinger won.Though it is a bit Obama-y, I feel you must Hope for Change in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Salt,For good or ill the winner of the SC primary has been the Republican nominee every four years since 1980. I'm disappointed that the Swinger won.Well, if y'all are so disappointed in who we pick perhaps you shouldn't have fought so hard when SC wanted to go its own way.The interesting thing to watch now is gonna be Florida. Will be interesting to see what the polls say in the next few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salt Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I don't think this is going to prove to be much more than a speed bump on Romney's path to the nomination. Honestly, its good for him to have as many opponents as possible right now so that no single person emerges as a viable alternative. A win for Santorum in Iowa and The Gingster in South Carolina ensures that they will both remain in the race for the near future and split votes between them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Anybody else listening to Gingrich's speech? How much of this does he actually believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartTesla Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Saul Alinsky, teleprompter, San Francisco radicals, media elites, San Antonio judicial extremists....lincoln-douglass, foodstamps....we didn't start the fire.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Saul Alinsky, teleprompter, San Francisco radicals, media elites, San Antonio judicial extremists....lincoln-douglass, foodstamps....we didn't start the fire....He's hitting every Fox News/Limbaugh dog-whistle there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterbound Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well, South Carolina is part of the nation in the same way that Staten Island is part of New York City. Most of us have a vague notion that it exists somewhere down there, but we dont really pay any attention to it 99 percent of the time.You're wrong, at least on the GOP end.SC is a fucking spot on representation of the GOP. Conservative, white, evangelical. They are a microcosm of the republican party. You can judge which way the rest of the country's like minded folk are going to cast their votes based on SC's decisions. I really think that Mitt's absolute fucking disconnect with the middle class, his unlikable demeanor (i know, i know it's not a personality contest, but the shit counts... look at Obama), and his indecisiveness about core conservative issues are all issues that are finally coming to a head. Also, don't forget the elephant in the room. The motherfucker is a Mormon. A religious sect that many evangelicals believe is a cult (and i'm not one to disagree with them). The dude just ain't going to make it, and in the off chance he manages to buy the coming primaries, the Democratic machine is going to eat him up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 It really kinda is a personality contest in alot of ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salt Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 SC is a fucking spot on representation of the GOP. Conservative, white, evangelical. They are a microcosm of the republican party. You can judge which way the rest of the country's like minded folk are going to cast their votes based on SC's decisions. That might represent a big part of the GOP, but its not the part thats making Romney the frontrunner No one ever expected the far right evengelicals to get excited about Mitt Romney, but its not going to stop him from being the nominee. I don't think the Gingrich win is going to amount to much in the end except a drawn out primary season, possibly one that actually comes down to a fight for delegates rather than overwhelming momentum. But at this point I think just about the only thing that could derail Romney is if we find out that he raped that dog before putting it on the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 It was a beat down, I hope the liberal media will stop pitching homerun balls to Newt.Liberal media? That old saw? There is no such thing. Only corporate media filling a profitable niche. CNN cowards,* MSNBC blowhards, and Fox outright unapologetic liars. Generally speaking.*The execs and the talking heads more than anything. Many of their reporters are pretty badass.What, they tried to attack Newt and that King dude got bitch slapped. Just call them how I see them. :DJohn King is neither your all inclusive "they" nor a biased liberal. He just sucks at his job. I think you need either glasses or a gag (or mittens in this case.)Well, if y'all are so disappointed in who we pick perhaps you shouldn't have fought so hard when SC wanted to go its own way.1. Y'all? Come on dude. Put away the stars and bars. We are all y'all now.2. And yeah, maybe they wouldn't have bothered as much had they known that SC would be almost as useless as Alabama in the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Anybody else listening to Gingrich's speech? How much of this does he actually believe?Like many successful politicians, I get the sense that Newt is able to believe, absolutely, what he is saying at the time that he is saying it: even if it's 100% in contradiction to what he was saying last week. More impressively, Newt has the ego to believe, absolutely, that there is actually no contradiction at all, or that if there is it's trivial. He starts, always, from the assumption that he's right: that anything coming out of his mouth is the truth. That's what's kept him going since the early disasters (that and a conviction that the usual rules don't apply to him, of course.)To put it another way: a politician can have many advantages, money, charm, good looks, sincerity, but don't underestimate the value of colossal, bullet-proof vanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So, what's to be gathered from this, I think, is that:- The Republican primary field still sucks. It sees the word "moderate" as a vile epithet. Remember, this is the party that criticizes Obama's foreign policy for being "nuanced".- People are still acting surprised that a party that has spent at least the past three decades reaping the energy of a sustained anti-intellectual frenzy is finding it difficult to field and support a candidate that isn't pants-on-head stupid/crazy.- Republican voters are still acting like indecisive customers at an extremely cheap brothel, deciding whether the really ugly one is better than the one that has the pox. The one that's clearly crazy and spends most of her time yammering about space aliens actually seems viable, which is telling.- The field still contains a Creationist doctor. Be honest: would you let someone perform surgery on you that doesn't understand eighth grade biology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Ser Greguh,Ron Paul's a creationist?This link:http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/l7fvc/ron_pauls_own_words_on_creationism_and_evolution/with a quote from his book seems to indicate he believes in God and evolution. I'm quite familier with that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Ser Greguh,Ron Paul's a creationist?This link:http://www.reddit.co..._and_evolution/with a quote from his book seems to indicate he believes in God and evolution. I'm quite familier with that position.But there is also (from wikiquote)On evolutionWell, at first I thought it was a very inappropriate question, you know, for the presidency to be decided on a scientific matter. And uh, I um, I think it's a theory — the theory of evolution. And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory. But it really doesn't bother me, it's not the most important issue for me, to make the difference in my life, to understand the exact origin. I think the creator that I know, uh, you know created us, every one of us and created the universe, and the precise time and manner and uh, you know, I just don't think we're at the point where anybody has absolute proof on either side."Ron Paul on Evolution", onegoodmove, 21 December 2007, retrieved on 2011-09-01asked if he believes the theory of evolution to be true or false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Seli,Wow, that's a poorly stated bunch of mumbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Greguh Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seli Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Seli,Wow, that's a poorly stated bunch of mumbling.I kind of expect that is the reason that quote shows up in more places. It shows a danger of using quotes. Although the 'it is (only) a theory' (i can ignore) bit does in my view not reflect well on Paul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Seli,I don't disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukelavee Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 So, here's a question: Any of you fine American folks catch Newt's reference to the Keystone pipeline, and PM Harper? Simply based upon the way it scans...I don't think Newt was, umm, accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.