New Hampshire Primary Thread

[solletica]

Persians are normally peaceful? Have you ever heard of Cyrus, Darius, or Xerxes? Yeah, they were peaceful as long as you submitted to their rule. If you didn't, they raped and pillaged until you did. Then, they allowed you to practice your religion so they could concentrate on invading more people instead of keeping the peace in the land they just conquered. Would you say the Mongols were peaceful? They did the same thing.
Islam? Normally peaceful? The Christians you speak of perverted the word of God by interperting the Bible the way they wanted to. Have you ever read the Quran? It clearly states that all infidels should be killed Verse 9:123 - "Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you." The Bible says nothing of the sort. What many people that perverted the Bible failed to realize was that the arrival of Jesus marked the end of the rule of law from the Old Testament. This is clearly stated in the Bible, by Jesus, numerous times in the New Testament. In addition, anytime in the Bible where you hear someone is instructed to violent acts, its in response to threats. The Quran clearly states that believers should be aggressive.

The Bible also states that Jesus checked the immigration papers of people before he healed them. . .

And let he who has come unto the land without the blessing of the Law be examined, for he is not to be given bread nor wine.

Santorum 3:16

 

[Gina]

At this point, Romney won Iowa. That may change as the voting irregularities are looked into and if the vote gets certified in a different fashion. But you're right, to a point. Its not necessarily who the media says, but what the votes say on the night and day after the election that matters. Casual political viewers aren't going to rightly care or think to look into Iowa's caucus's two days later let alone 2 months later. So whether the results shift or not, the view is that Romney won it. And even if he doesn't, a close second in Iowa and a commanding 1st in New Hampshire still sets him up extremely solidly.

Especially given Santorum's poor showing in New Hampshire. It might have become an issue had Santorum come in a few percentage points short of Romney there. However, coming in 5th, basically 30% behind, pretty much makes it a non-issue for the casual viewer and possibly some of those who are more serious.

 

[LastChance12]

Can someone explain to me how Romney is appealing to you?

 

[solletica]

Especially given Santorum's poor showing in New Hampshire. It might have become an issue had Santorum come in a few percentage points short of Romney there. However, coming in 5th, basically 30% behind, pretty much makes it a non-issue for the casual viewer and possibly some of those who are more serious.

Santorum had no choice but to lose NH. The NH voters didn't like the gay bashing, but santorum had to keep doing it to secure the conservative votes in other states.

 

[a777pilot]

At this point, Romney won Iowa. That may change as the voting irregularities are looked into and if the vote gets certified in a different fashion. But you're right, to a point. Its not necessarily who the media says, but what the votes say on the night and day after the election that matters. Casual political viewers aren't going to rightly care or think to look into Iowa's caucus's two days later let alone 2 months later. So whether the results shift or not, the view is that Romney won it. And even if he doesn't, a close second in Iowa and a commanding 1st in New Hampshire still sets him up extremely solidly.

Except for the following.

IA and NH together make up 1.39% of the population of the USA.

SC by itself is more than that.

Now, FL is more than twice the population of the first three states combined and it's a "closed" primary. Why would anyone want to crown as "winner" someone that hasn't even been tested in a big state yet?

Yes, I understand the MSM want Romney but I didn't know they had a vote.

It is suppose to be a long processes for a reason. Keep in mine that by the end of FEB the GOP will have had a "vote" on just 304 delegates out of a total of 1144 needed to win the GOP nomination. That is a very long way from actually having that nomination.

 

[a777pilot]

The Bible also states that Jesus checked the immigration papers of people before he healed them. . .

Another Tebow hater I see.

LOL!

 

[solletica]

Can someone explain to me how Romney is appealing to you?

Well I like the fact that romney once solicited the services of a lawn company that employed undocumented labor. This shows his compassionate side.

 

[a777pilot]

Especially given Santorum's poor showing in New Hampshire. It might have become an issue had Santorum come in a few percentage points short of Romney there. However, coming in 5th, basically 30% behind, pretty much makes it a non-issue for the casual viewer and possibly some of those who are more serious.

Read post #130.

 

[a777pilot]

Well I like the fact that romney once solicited the services of a lawn company that employed undocumented labor. This shows his compassionate side.

Actually he did not but don't let facts get in your way.

 

[AdamT]

Do you see Redress? Do you see? This is why when you said what you said my lid flipped, is because I've been conditioned to this kind of reaction by these kind of idiotic, non-contextual arguments...

Disney, since you're still peddling this same tired tripe I'm going to repost the same argument against it that I did last time this came up from someone



Now, a couple things specific to your post...

He oversaw a increase in government spending on the military during a time of pseud-war, something that is not inherently "not conservative" nor would be viewed as "not conservative" by today's conservatives, which was the standard you were trying to use. National Defense and the military is one of the few clear cut constitutional duties of the Federal Government and is one of the areas of expenditure on the national stage that modern conservatives have a greater amount of lienence with.

You point out immigration, yet again as I pointed out above you do so without context. You fail to point out that part of the conservative refusal to go along with Amnesty is BECAUSE Reagan did it and it was shown, through the historic aftermath, that such a method does not work. To say that Reagan would not be viewed as a conservative today, one would either need to assume, ignorantly, that he'd do the exact same thing again today if placed in the context of the world today...OR....that we're to judge a man's actions of 20+ years ago baesd on the new factors that have came into play on the issue since that point. Both are retarded things to do. It also misses out on the notion that Reagan was compromising on the amnesty issue with the hopes of potentially strengthening enforcement laws. Go back to my post above regarding context on compromising then and now.

You are attempting to do one of two plainly stupid things when looking at his presidential record...either attepmting to view his record with ZERO context of the world at that time OR you're attempting to take said record sans context and place it into the modern time. Both are just horribly dumb and dishonest.

All true and valid points, but essentially beside the point. When people point out that Reagan would be considered a moderate today they are generally making the same point you just made: the right has shifted dramatically to the right since Reagan's day. In Reagan's time, the today's right wing politician would have been considered an extreme, fringe candidate. Not much different from a John Bircher.

 

[solletica]

Actually he did not but don't let facts get in your way.

Lawn work at Romney's home still done by illegal immigrants - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

 

[a777pilot]

All true and valid points, but essentially beside the point. When people point out that Reagan would be considered a moderate today they are generally making the same point you just made: the right has shifted dramatically to the right since Reagan's day. In Reagan's time, the today's right wing politician would have been considered an extreme, fringe candidate. Not much different from a John Bircher.

And if you read the words of JFK and lived during his time you when think he was a Republican if he was round today.

What's your point? That times and things change? You might be correct on that.

 

[danarhea]

And those babies are legal US citizens under the 14th.

Long-term guest workers are also legal residents of the US. Do you want them deported, too?

I agree. I also agree the constitution should be amended to exclude anchor babies.

 

[a777pilot]

Lawn work at Romney's home still done by illegal immigrants - Local News Updates - The Boston Globe

Thank you for that link. I was correct, then, even if it was the very Liberal Boston Globe.

 

[a777pilot]

I agree. I also agree the constitution should be amended to exclude anchor babies.

The issue of anchor babies has yet to be taken up by the Supreme Court. They may or may not be US citzens. As of today, they are but one wonders what the Court will say.

 

[Zyphlin]

All true and valid points, but essentially beside the point. When people point out that Reagan would be considered a moderate today they are generally making the same point you just made: the right has shifted dramatically to the right since Reagan's day. In Reagan's time, the today's right wing politician would have been considered an extreme, fringe candidate. Not much different from a John Bircher.

Except that's not the point I'm making at all. Its not that the right has "shifted dramatically", its that the world as a whole has shifted and changed. I don't think the ideology of "the right" has shifted all that much since the days of Reagan. I think the desire or feeling of necessity to compromise has shifted, absolutely! I think the willingness to veer from ideology in hopes of getting some of it implimented has shifted. Completely! The realities of the past 20 years has caused that shift, not some heightening extremism within the Republican party. Take the Republicans of the 1970's and 1980's and place them in today's world, with the full context of what has happened over the past 20 years, and I don't think they'd be any different than many of the Republicans now. The ideology hasn't significantly shifted, its largely been the political PROCESSES viewed as acceptable or necessary that have shifted...and for good reason!

Take Deacon Jones from the 1960's and drop him down onto the St. Louis Ram's of today and he'd be an average lineman most likely. He'd be no match for the speed, quickness, strength, and all around athleticism the majority of left tackles in the game have today. If you want an 80's analogy, you could take Lawerence Taylor as well in a league that has learned more how to deal with extremely athletic and powerful line backers, he'd probably be a good but not a top 10 player of all time. Put them both in the new NFL with rules against hitting the head of the quarterback (This was a STAPLE of Jones game) or the mass amounts of rules for protecting QB's and WR's from head hits and unnecessary roughness. Part of what made Taylor great was the intimidation factor, yet that'd be reduced a fair bit by modern rules as he would be thrown out of games for spearing heads.

However...take those two guys, give them modern training throughout their life, give them experience playing under the rules of the NFL today not of the 60's and 80's, have them understand the game as its played today...and you're likely to see them become Hall of Fame level players in the modern NFL.

This attempt to take Ronald Reagan in the '80s and place him into the 2010's and expect that to be some direct correlation is like trying to place Deacon Jones opposite Chris Long on the Rams and proclaiming that he'd be considered an average to good player now.

Yes, I get the point that people, typically the most hyper partisan of liberals, are trying to make by pointing out that they think Reagan would be considered a moderate today (pointing that OPINION out as if its fact). I also get that their point is full of holes, flimsy, ridiculous, and stupid.

 

[Zyphlin]

Can someone explain to me how Romney is appealing to you?

Seems to have a decent experience pedigree, having arguably success both in business, in major event management, and in an executive branch of government. Believed to have some crossover appeal with Independents and believed to potentially pose the biggest threat to Barack Obama. Is primarily pushing Fiscal issues during an election that is fiscally focused rather than trying to latch onto wedge issues. A few thoughts off the top of my head.

I don't really find Romney hugely appealing. I don't find him hugely unappealing. I just find him kind of...there.

 

[solletica]

The issue of anchor babies has yet to be taken up by the Supreme Court.

It has already been taken up by the SCOTUS, which has affirmed the citizenship of those born in the US to immigrants who aren't legal US residents. . .

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent regarding the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The citizenship status of Wong—a man born in the United States to Chinese parents around 1871—was challenged, based on a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.–born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, we know rush limbaugh never mentioned the above.

 

[Zyphlin]

It is suppose to be a long processes for a reason. Keep in mine that by the end of FEB the GOP will have had a "vote" on just 304 delegates out of a total of 1144 needed to win the GOP nomination. That is a very long way from actually having that nomination.

I fully understand the two states make up a tiny portion of the country. That said, there's still a few things you can gleam from it. For example, Iowa is one of the more conservative and evangelical primaries you're going to get in the Country, and Romney did well there. New Hampshire is one of the more moderate locations you're going to get in the country, Romney did VERY well there. Romney is doing well in most of the other main states upcoming as well. Romney's success in those two states has also given him a bit of momentum while hindeirng other people's momentum. At the same time, because the only person to finish 3rd or better in both states is Ron Paul, whose crossover voter isn't likely very strong with some of those that are dropping out, there's no one that's been truly catipulted forward to give Romney a strong fight in those early states.

Santorum did great in one state, and horrible in the next. Gingrich did rather poorly in both states. Huntsman did okay in one state and horrible in the other. Perry did poorly in one and horrible in another. Bachmann's gone. And Ron Paul keeps chugging along in 3rd place with the "not Romney nor the social con" vote, and that's not going to win him any election.

Its not that I think Iowa and New Hampshire are gigantically important, its that as it stands based on what's occured thus far, what the polls look like going forward, and what the status of the candidates in the race right now...I can't see a lot of legitimate and realistic scenarios where Romney doesn't take the nomination.

If you have one for me, please...I'd love to hear it. Its not something I'd feel bad about being wrong. What's your scenario for what other candidate to potentially win the nomination?

 

[solletica]

Thank you for that link. I was correct, then, even if it was the very Liberal Boston Globe.

No, you were very much wrong. The article stated that the employees of the firm were, in fact, undocumented workers under US law (whose relevance I question everyday), and you stated otherwise.

Sorry :lol:

 

[MarineTpartier]

The Bible also states that Jesus checked the immigration papers of people before he healed them. . .

Thats funny.

 

[a777pilot]

It has already been taken up by the SCOTUS, which has affirmed the citizenship of those born in the US to immigrants who aren't legal US residents. . .



Yes, we know rush limbaugh never mentioned the above.

Ah, I was waiting for that reference. In that case, both parents were legal residence of the USA. in other words they were here legally. What has NOT been ajudicated is the case of those born here to those that are here illegally.

p.s., I don't listen to Rush. Why do you?

 

[a777pilot]

No, you were very much wrong. The article stated that the employees of the firm were, in fact, undocumented workers under US law (whose relevance I question everyday), and you stated otherwise.

Sorry :lol:

....but you failed to show that Mr. Romney had knowledge of these worker and haing that knowledge continued their employment at his home.


LOL! back at ya!

 

[a777pilot]

I fully understand the two states make up a tiny portion of the country. That said, there's still a few things you can gleam from it. For example, Iowa is one of the more conservative and evangelical primaries you're going to get in the Country, and Romney did well there. New Hampshire is one of the more moderate locations you're going to get in the country, Romney did VERY well there. Romney is doing well in most of the other main states upcoming as well. Romney's success in those two states has also given him a bit of momentum while hindeirng other people's momentum. At the same time, because the only person to finish 3rd or better in both states is Ron Paul, whose crossover voter isn't likely very strong with some of those that are dropping out, there's no one that's been truly catipulted forward to give Romney a strong fight in those early states.

Santorum did great in one state, and horrible in the next. Gingrich did rather poorly in both states. Huntsman did okay in one state and horrible in the other. Perry did poorly in one and horrible in another. Bachmann's gone. And Ron Paul keeps chugging along in 3rd place with the "not Romney nor the social con" vote, and that's not going to win him any election.

Its not that I think Iowa and New Hampshire are gigantically important, its that as it stands based on what's occured thus far, what the polls look like going forward, and what the status of the candidates in the race right now...I can't see a lot of legitimate and realistic scenarios where Romney doesn't take the nomination.

If you have one for me, please...I'd love to hear it. Its not something I'd feel bad about being wrong. What's your scenario for what other candidate to potentially win the nomination?

Let's see....Iowa voted Democrat in the 4 out of the past 5 Presidential election. Not exactually a conservative state. Mitt is very close to a "favorite son" in the state of NH. Besides that why should two very small and most Democrat leaning states that have "open" primaries be so determinate in this processes?

Let's see what the make up is on the morning of 7 MAR.

 

[AdamT]

Except that's not the point I'm making at all. Its not that the right has "shifted dramatically", its that the world as a whole has shifted and changed. I don't think the ideology of "the right" has shifted all that much since the days of Reagan. I think the desire or feeling of necessity to compromise has shifted, absolutely! I think the willingness to veer from ideology in hopes of getting some of it implimented has shifted. Completely! The realities of the past 20 years has caused that shift, not some heightening extremism within the Republican party. Take the Republicans of the 1970's and 1980's and place them in today's world, with the full context of what has happened over the past 20 years, and I don't think they'd be any different than many of the Republicans now. The ideology hasn't significantly shifted, its largely been the political PROCESSES viewed as acceptable or necessary that have shifted...and for good reason!

[silly sports analogy omitted]

This attempt to take Ronald Reagan in the '80s and place him into the 2010's and expect that to be some direct correlation is like trying to place Deacon Jones opposite Chris Long on the Rams and proclaiming that he'd be considered an average to good player now.

Yes, I get the point that people, typically the most hyper partisan of liberals, are trying to make by pointing out that they think Reagan would be considered a moderate today (pointing that OPINION out as if its fact). I also get that their point is full of holes, flimsy, ridiculous, and stupid.

I think that the facts simply don't support your argument. Reagan didn't raise taxes a dozen times because he was desperate for compromise. He raised taxes a dozen times because he understood that his initial tax cuts were too severe and that the resulting revenue was insufficient to run the government. He didn't raise the debt limit 18 times because he was trying to placate Democrats. In fact he chastised Congress that it would be dangerously irresponsible NOT to raise the debt limit. Reagan proposed many spending cuts, but he refused to touch Medicare and Social Security. In fact he raised taxes to prop up Social Security. He signed the largest corporate tax increase in history. Reagan didn't grant amnesty millions of illegals because Democrats insisted on it. He said, "I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally."

Methinks that someone needs to take off his wingnut goggles.