Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Mitt and ____________??Follow

#27 Apr 06 2012 at 12:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Guru
**
715 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
They'll psych themselves into Mitt + miniMitt if that's the card they're dealt.
I'd unquestioningly vote for Mitt if his VP was Warwick Davis Dionne Warwick.


... cause that's what friends are for.

#28 Apr 06 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Dozer wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
They'll psych themselves into Mitt + miniMitt if that's the card they're dealt.
I'd unquestioningly vote for Mitt if his VP was Warwick Davis Dionne Warwick. Warrick Dunn


... cause that's what friends are for.



Great player and a super-charitable dude. Plus I think he was my RB2 my first year of fantasy football.
#29 Apr 06 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,228 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
They'll psych themselves into Mitt + miniMitt if that's the card they're dealt.
I'd unquestioningly vote for Mitt if his VP was Warwick Davis.

How about Tadpole Jackson?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#30 Apr 06 2012 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Verne is too obvious as a mini-me choice.


Meh, obviously. The bad hairpiece was supposed to seal the deal.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#31 Apr 06 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Rubio may not be the right choice, but I think an ultra-conservative is the best bet if you want to give Mitt Mormon the best chance to win. As I said previosuly, he's far enough left that he's going to attract disillusioned independents no matter who his running mate is.


I happen to think Rubio would be a good choice. Maybe not the best one, but while he's well regarded by the Tea Party, he is not seen in the same "wild eyed crazy" way as some other Tea Party leaders (except by the far far left of course, who don't really count anyway). He's Latino, which helps. There are a lot of Latino voters who lean to the right, but tend to be afraid of certain issues (immigration specifically) if anyone but a Latino conservative is talking about them. His stance on immigration does not hurt him with mainstream Latino voters at all.

The bigger issue IMO, and one which Rubio may or may not address is the south. And before anyone starts throwing knowing looks and saying "southern strategy", the reality is that the primaries have shown that Romney is weak in the south (duh). His VP pick pretty much absolutely has to be someone who can get voters in southern states to vote GOP. There's a fair number of possibilities to be honest.

It will not be Santorum. Too much baggage. It probably wont be Gingrich. He's too similar to Romney in the eyes of voters (although he is stronger in the south). It has to be someone who will be viewed positively by religious right conservatives, but not be scary to moderates and independents. That's going to be tricky IMO, but doable. He might go for a woman, but the pickings are slim. Not because there aren't plenty of conservative women who could do the job, but because the left tends to single them out for special attention and assault (can't allow women to choose to be anything but liberal you know!) so most of them have been so demonized (or are afraid of being Palinized), that any choice can end out being dangerous.

Quote:
Rubio (or Jindal) also make sensebecause they are younger than most of the VP candidates being kicked around, and if they want to give Mitt the best chance to win, they have to take some of the younger voters away from Obama.


Yeah. I agree to that as well. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be about hip appeal. They got that with Obama and young voters are largely unhappy with the result. I think that this time around, they just need to get the message that fun and games and clever idealistic slogans are great, but if you're young and want to have a good job when you get out of school, voting Republican will be a better choice. Obama's already provided enough failed promises and hopes and dreams to fill the negative side of that equation. Just need to present an alternative and appeal to young voters taking responsibility for building a better tomorrow, not just voting for hope and seeing it dashed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#32 Apr 06 2012 at 2:59 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. I agree to that as well. Although it doesn't necessarily have to be about hip appeal. They got that with Obama and young voters are largely unhappy with the result. I think that this time around, they just need to get the message that fun and games and clever idealistic slogans are great, but if you're young and want to have a good job when you get out of school, voting Republican will be a better choice. Obama's already provided enough failed promises and hopes and dreams to fill the negative side of that equation. Just need to present an alternative and appeal to young voters taking responsibility for building a better tomorrow, not just voting for hope and seeing it dashed.


I agree. Here's what I'm looking at, though. Mitt Romney is 64 years old. To someone my age (34), he is past the time when economic policies are going to seriously affect the rest of his life, even if he wasn't a multi-millionaire. Someone like Marco Rubio (40), Bobby Jindal (40), or even Chris Christie (50) are going to appeal on a completely different level to young voters than someone like Rick Santorum (54), Newt Gingrich (69), or Ron Paul (77).

I also do see Romney picking a woman as his running mate simply because of the circus that has surrounded Sarah Palin for the last 4 years. As you said, it seems the left and the leftist media have a special place in their hearts for launching attacks against female conservatives.

In the end, I just see Romney choosing someone young and ultra-conservative because it balances the ticket in multiple ways. Unfortunately, I can't think of anybody who matches that description other than Rubio and Jindal.

Edit: There are obviously reasons other than age that Gingrich and Paul won't get the VP nod, but that's what this post was about and they were easy examples to make.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 4:00pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#33 Apr 06 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
You really shouldn't use a term like "ultra-conservative" without clearly defining what you mean. Trust me, it means radically different things to different people.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Apr 06 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,826 posts
gbaji wrote:
You really shouldn't use a term like "ultra-conservative" without clearly defining what you mean. Trust me, it means radically different things to different people.


I've said what I meant by it throughout the thread if you read the rest of the posts. And really I'm just using it as a label to differentiate the person from the more moderate Romney.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#35 Apr 06 2012 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If Gbaji is pulling for Rubio, he should be your man. Gbaji also defended Palin to his last breath and look at how that worked out.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Apr 06 2012 at 3:38 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,826 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If Gbaji is pulling for Rubio, he should be your man. Gbaji also defended Palin to his last breath and look at how that worked out.


I trust you're not implying that Palin being his VP choice is what cost McCain the election.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#37 Apr 06 2012 at 3:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm saying that she almost certainly cost him votes given where her popularity with independents was at come election day. But, no, he would have lost regardless.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Apr 06 2012 at 3:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You really shouldn't use a term like "ultra-conservative" without clearly defining what you mean. Trust me, it means radically different things to different people.


I've said what I meant by it throughout the thread if you read the rest of the posts. And really I'm just using it as a label to differentiate the person from the more moderate Romney.


I have read the rest of your posts. That's why I said what I said. You've been incredibly inconsistent with your use of the phrase "ultra-conservative":


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I would argue at this point, the Republican Party is split into 3 factions. The ultra-conservative/Tea Party type, the "plain old conservative" establishment, and more moderate conservatives. So let's call them 1, 2, and 3 with the lower the number being the more conservative.


I think the type 1's mostly just want "not Obama". They'll psych themselves into Mitt + miniMitt if that's the card they're dealt.


I disagree mainly because I am one of those type 1s so can speak from my own experience.


Bigdaddyjug wrote:
And yeah, I doubt I'm representative of the typical ultra-conservative, mainly because I'm mostly a fiscal (that word always looks funny when I type it) ultra-conservative while being mush more moderate in my views on social things


So the Tea Party is "ultra-conservative". Which is what you are, but Mitt is not. And you're a fiscal conservative and moderate socially. Oh. And I think I accidentally left out some bit where you put social-ultra-conservative in a post (and I don't feel like finding it and adding in the quote). The problem is that while I agree that the Tea Party is most focused on fiscal conservative positions, most on the left will insist that they are socially conservative as well (mostly as a "gotta have a boogieman" thing). So you match what the Tea Party is, but not what it's perceived to be. But you don't place Romney in the same group. But that group is exactly what Romney is (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), and exactly what most of us are talking about with regards to balancing out Romney as a candidate.


Which can't both be true. If you're putting Romney in group 3, and "ultra-conservatives" in group1, then you (as a fiscal conservative and social moderate) don't fit into group 1. You're in group3. Or... the whole scale is wrong because it's missing an axis or two.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 2:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Apr 06 2012 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
(mostly as a "gotta have a boogieman" thing)

We can't all start barking every time someone rings the "Government!" bell Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Apr 06 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
***
2,826 posts
gbaji wrote:
So the Tea Party is "ultra-conservative". Which is what you are, but Mitt is not. And you're a fiscal conservative and moderate socially. Oh. And I think I accidentally left out some bit where you put social-ultra-conservative in a post (and I don't feel like finding it and adding in the quote). The problem is that while I agree that the Tea Party is most focused on fiscal conservative positions, most on the left will insist that they are socially conservative as well (mostly as a "gotta have a boogieman" thing). So you match what the Tea Party is, but not what it's perceived to be. But you don't place Romney in the same group. But that group is exactly what Romney is (fiscally conservative, socially moderate), and exactly what most of us are talking about with regards to balancing out Romney as a candidate.


Which can't both be true. If you're putting Romney in group 3, and "ultra-conservatives" in group1, then you (as a fiscal conservative and social moderate) don't fit into group 1. You're in group3. Or... the whole scale is wrong because it's missing an axis or two.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 2:45pm by gbaji


Tea Party = ultra-conservative
I = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially
Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative

I would wager to say that for this particular election, fiscal policy is in the forefront of more peoples' minds than social policy simply because of the condition our economy has been in for the past 4-5 years.

Because of that, my views as an ultra-conservative are rather important in who gets selected as Romney's running mate.

Is this not nearly as hard to understand as you're making it out to be, or are you just way dumber than I have ben giving you credit for?

I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 5:01pm by Bigdaddyjug
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#41 Apr 06 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Tea Party = ultra-conservative <--- The term you have not defined
I = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially
Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative


Pretend that I have no clue what the word "conservative" means, much less what an "ultra" version of a conservative is. I just feel that sometimes we sling these words around without really thinking about what we're saying. ****. Sometimes I think we use them in order to avoid being clear about what we're saying. We use a term. The folks we're talking to use it back. We all pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

But sometimes we're not. Call me crazy, but I like to check every once in awhile, just to be sure that we really are talking about the same thing here.

For example, I thought that the key platform of the Tea Party *was* fiscal conservative. So your insistence that since you're ultra-conservative fiscally, that this somehow differentiates you from the Tea Party which is just ultra-conservative in general, kinda makes no sense. Is there some other measurement of "ultra-conservative" which the Tea Party has, but you don't?

Quote:
I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.


Sure. Assuming we can even nail down a working definition of fiscal conservative. I know... Crazy talk!

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 5:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Apr 06 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
This is like watching two Google chat bots go at it with each other.

Smiley: popcorn
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#43 Apr 07 2012 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
For example, I thought that the key platform of the Tea Party *was* fiscal conservative.
It was, I think. It got hijacked by all the racists, *** bashers, and pretty much other of the rest of the republican party that doesn't want to compromise on anything ever.

The tea party is full of fake libertarians.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#44 Apr 07 2012 at 8:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
More to it, it's controlled by people whose real sole goal is to fight with Democrats and block the president. Which I'm sure sounds groovy to Gbaji and he'll say "but that's a good thing" but it's also why it has favorabilities of around -20 points. It's the very embodiment of what people talk about when they say Washington is broken.

The only people who'll be interested in a Tea Party acolyte as VP are the already converted.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Apr 07 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,042 posts
gbaji wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Tea Party = ultra-conservative <--- The term you have not defined
I = ultra-conservative fiscally, moderate socially
Ergo: I am not indicative of the typical ultra-conservative


Pretend that I have no clue what the word "conservative" means, much less what an "ultra" version of a conservative is. I just feel that sometimes we sling these words around without really thinking about what we're saying. ****. Sometimes I think we use them in order to avoid being clear about what we're saying. We use a term. The folks we're talking to use it back. We all pretend that we're talking about the same thing.

But sometimes we're not. Call me crazy, but I like to check every once in awhile, just to be sure that we really are talking about the same thing here.

For example, I thought that the key platform of the Tea Party *was* fiscal conservative. So your insistence that since you're ultra-conservative fiscally, that this somehow differentiates you from the Tea Party which is just ultra-conservative in general, kinda makes no sense. Is there some other measurement of "ultra-conservative" which the Tea Party has, but you don't?

Quote:
I would also argue that Romney isn't nearly as fiscally conservative as he would like people to believe he is, but that's a completely different conversation.


Sure. Assuming we can even nail down a working definition of fiscal conservative. I know... Crazy talk!

Edited, Apr 6th 2012 5:38pm by gbaji


Apparently the sign says "No Gbajis allowed".
#46 Apr 07 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm always a bit puzzled why someone would categorize themselves as anything, especially an "ultra-something" category, because it's basically saying that you're completely ignoring everything except for one side. I don't think that's what you're doing, but why would you build a box around yourself?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#47 Apr 07 2012 at 10:44 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
why would you build a box around yourself?


Duh.
#48 Apr 07 2012 at 11:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Aside from Gbaji, what's the half-life of a conservative (US flavor) poster around here? Two months?

Edited, Apr 7th 2012 12:06pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Apr 07 2012 at 10:57 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Aside from Gbaji, what's the half-life of a conservative (US flavor) poster around here? Two months?

Edited, Apr 7th 2012 12:06pm by Jophiel

I don't know, I consider myself (at least) somewhat conservative, I'm still here I just don't post much.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#50 Apr 08 2012 at 12:33 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
*****
15,952 posts
Conservative: Someone who wants to conserve a present or past system. There's a heck of a lot of systems, so one can be more or less conservative on a thousand different issues. One could be progressive on hundreds of issues and still wind up in the Conservative camp politically, because there's a past/present system one thinks is more important to preserve. Economics has hundreds of legislated or executed issues. Society has hundreds of legislated or executed issue. Pick your issue. Where are you on the Preserve or Change slidey bar?

Huh, we could go for Preservers or Changers, instead of Conservatives and Progressives.
Preservatives and Alternatives?
Classicists and Alterators sounds more fun. Smiley: grin

Edited, Apr 8th 2012 2:34am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#51 Apr 08 2012 at 8:32 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,546 posts
Progressive Conservatives (It was a real thing in Canada!)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)