Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...? (1 Viewer)

[Zyphlin]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Oh, I thought you were familiar with politics. My bad. Your contention is that inefficient policy decisions have never resulted in serious difficulties with implementing efficient policy decisions in the future. I say that the 70's and 80's prove that contention wrong.

Reagan's amnesty plan and the lack of stricter border security and immigration enforcement mixed with the significant influx of additional illegals into the country after it absolutely positively has zero impact on conservatives refusing to get on board with passing legislation that enables a path to citizenship with the promise of more strict border security and enforcement....no sirree, that would just be imaginary, assuming that people use past issues with policies as a means and a platform for refusing future policy....stop with your crazy imagination you crazy person.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Reagan's amnesty plan and the lack of stricter border security and immigration enforcement mixed with the significant influx of additional illegals into the country after it absolutely positively has zero impact on conservatives refusing to get on board with passing legislation that enables a path to citizenship with the promise of more strict border security and enforcement....no sirree, that would just be imaginary, assuming that people use past issues with policies as a means and a platform for refusing future policy....stop with your crazy imagination you crazy person.

Sure, if it wasn't for something Reagan did 25 years ago Republicans would be falling all over themselves to grant amnesty and weaken border security.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

And that is a straw man. There is a difference between saying that all policies are somewhat inefficient and that we still continue to make new policies, and saying that inefficient policy has never hampered efficient policy.

Efficient =/= perfect. We're not talking about less efficient, we are talking about inefficient. Current policies will be inefficient at best, ineffective at worst.

By claiming that "all policies are somewhat inefficient" you are not only creating a strawman (that I am requiring a perfect solution), you are being outright dishonest in your use of language.

And what I did was not a strawman. It was merely a description of the very thing you called imaginary. If it is not your position (i.e. if it resembles a strawman to you), they you are basically retracting your claim about it being an imaginary factor, thus acknowledging the truth of my previous claim. It's not a strawman, it's a change in your position which nullifies the example.

If you are not retracting that claim of it being an imaginary factor, then it can't be a strawman because you have to agree with the claims it makes about your position.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Sure, if it wasn't for something Reagan did 25 years ago Republicans would be falling all over themselves to grant amnesty and weaken border security.

Probably not, but there's a fair chance you'd be more likely to convince more moderate Republicans and independent Conesrvatives to agree to a compromise deal if such hadn't been tried before to negative results.

(By the way, who said anything about "weaken border security". Reagan's plan wasn't supposed to do that so its an irrelevant factor to chuck into the example)

 

[AdamT]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Probably not, but there's a fair chance you'd be more likely to convince more moderate Republicans and independent Conesrvatives to agree to a compromise deal if such hadn't been tried before to negative results.

(By the way, who said anything about "weaken border security". Reagan's plan wasn't supposed to do that so its an irrelevant factor to chuck into the example)

Possibly, but I think it's a poor analogy. If the goal is to limit or reduce immigration, as it is for many Republicans, then Reagan's policy was the inverse of what they want. In contrast, anything that reduces emissions, even if it isn't maximally efficient, will help reduce the AGW problem.

Or for a different spin, the Reagan/Bush tax cuts resulted in massive, unsustainable deficits. That's why Republicans no longer have any interest in tax cuts?

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

If the goal is to limit or reduce immigration...

I don't believe that was the goal. I'm pretty sure that the goals were related to illegal immigration, not immigration in general.

 

[Catawba]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Which goes along with what he said back in MAY, that we shouldn't be making policies such and cap in trade.

There's evidence there's AGW, he believes in AGW, what he doesn't believe is that the information regarding it is solid enough in regards to it however to make sweeping over arching localized policies concerning it. This matches with his stance in May.



However, it is still "consensus", not absolute fact, furthermore while there is significant scientific concensus that its occuring there is not overwhelming and unquestionable concensus on what the effect of it will be, how fast said affect will be, what affect man can have on stopping it, what affect the U.S. could have on stopping it if the rest of the world doesn't act, and on and on. Which seems to be his point. While the general notion, that there's man made global warming, is generally held true by the majority of the scientific community that is only one broad, over arching statement that gives little real insight into anything. The uncertainty about specifics regarding it leaves him to believe that it is not worth potentially damaging the economy to enter into over arching federal policy to "fight" global warming. That doesn't mean he deny's that it exists, it means he doesn't think there's certain enough evidence that its absolutely necessary and have a net beneficial affect on the country to impliment policies to "combat" it.

There has been consensus for going on 5 years that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to climate change. What is Hunstman, or any of the GOP candidates proposing to do about that?

 

[AdamT]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I don't believe that was the goal. I'm pretty sure that the goals were related to illegal immigration, not immigration in general.

Right, but what I'm saying is that the goal of present-day Republicans (and many Democrats and independents) is to limit or reduce immigration, period -- whether or not they will admit it publicly.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Right, but what I'm saying is that the goal of present-day Republicans (and many Democrats and independents) is to limit or reduce immigration, period -- whether or not they will admit it publicly.

I don't know about that. I'm not only the child of immigrants, my father was an illegal immigrant when he first came here. People seem to have no problem with them being immigrants, while many are bothered about the fact that he first came here illegally.

I don't really see a difference, mind you, but from what I can tell others do make a distinction. I know American (the poster), for example, supports legal immigration because his parents are immigrants who came here legally. He opposes illegal immigration for the same reason.

I say this as someone who has said numerous times that I am an "illegal immigrant sympathizer".

 

[AdamT]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I don't know about that. I'm not only the child of immigrants, my father was an illegal immigrant when he first came here. People seem to have no problem with them being immigrants, while many are bothered about the fact that he first came here illegally.

I don't really see a difference, mind you, but from what I can tell others do make a distinction. I know American (the poster), for example, supports legal immigration because his parents are immigrants who came here legally. He opposes illegal immigration for the same reason.

I say this as someone who has said numerous times that I am an "illegal immigrant sympathizer".

Yeah, I was probably too categorical above. I agree that there are many people who are primarily concerned about the legality of it. But I also think that there are a lot of people who focus on the legal/illegal distinction, but who really just think there are way too many ferners here, regardless.

 

[Tucker Case]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Yeah, I was probably too categorical above. I agree that there are many people who are primarily concerned about the legality of it. But I also think that there are a lot of people who focus on the legal/illegal distinction, but who really just think there are way too many ferners here, regardless.

I think that those people exist, too, but I wouldn't say they are a majority. I liked Zyph's example because I know some people who are more opposed to a compromise on immigration (such as an easier path to legal immigration) because of the amnesty under Reagan. They see the things as being identical, when they are not.

It speaks to my point that implementing ineffective measures done for the sake of doing something can be detrimental to implementing real, long-term solutions. I'm a proponent of long-term solutions over stop-gaps. The unfortunate political reality is that stop-gaps are typically pushed because they offer the best chance for immediate political gain. Proponents of them can pretend that they accomplished something, while opponents will be able to use their ineffectiveness to their advantage in the future.

I support many initiatives about global warming that will have real benefits over the long term. Promoting nuclear, solar, and wind power, for example. Creating tax benefits for using fuel efficient, low-emission vehicles. Tax breaks for companies that have low carbon footprints (as opposed to taxing their emissions. There's a good reason for this, but I'd also enjoy the delicious irony of seeing some conservatives vote against a tax cut :lol: I also think it is a more likely compromise so that it could take effect and would have almost no negative effects).

Not many of these are extremely efficient on the global scale, but they also have very little in the way of negatives politically (nobody will be able to point to any of these and say "look what happens when you implement a policy of this nature, except for perhaps the power sources, but those will help get us off of fossil fuels in general which will have long-term benefits even without global warming being an issue).

Each of them offers the ability to be built upon to increase their efficiency as well.

 

[American]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Yeah, unlike this guy! :lol:

Glen Beck questioned him pretty hard about this and other stuff he's said in the past. You should go look up the interview and read it.

 

[jgarden47]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Republicans, do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have in Jon Huntsman? The man would almost certainly have the possibility of my vote, and I seriously vote as stinkin' a liberal as you'll ever meet. Keep in mind despite my voting past ... I am politically ala carte and probably more conservative than most of you on here ...

That's how good he is!

Check out this op-ed he wrote for CNN

Bring U.S. military in line with new reality - CNN.com

How does the son of a billionaire businessman and owner of the Huntsman Corporation relate to the average citizen?

The wealthy are already far over-represented in Congress!

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

How does the son of a billionaire businessman and owner of the Huntsman Corporation relate to the average citizen?

Said son didn't grow up singularly as the son of a "billionaire" from day one. His father was relatively middle class in his youth and grew the business to that degree. Barack Obama, supposed champion of the "middle class", was out there the other day campaigning aobut how we need to restore the ability for people to reach the American Dream. I would think a Middle Class individual starting a business and eventually raising it to become an extremely successful corporation is a pretty good realization of the American Dream being played out.

 

[Dav]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Looks like he's starting to get smarter about his messaging. The question is... will it work?

Huntsman makes a new push for conservatives | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

The more I read about this guy the more it confounds me that his support is so low.

 

[iliveonramen]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Huntsman would never win the primary. It's weird too...he's as conservative or more conservative than any member he's running against. His economic plan is VERY conservative, his record is very conservative, he's got experience as a Diplomat to our largest trading partner and as Governor of Utah. It's crazy to me, the guy on paper is fantastic. Instead the leader is a carrer politician that is known to be crooked as a Z and the other is a flip flopper.

I'm boggled. The thing is, Huntsman is so sane that a lot of Liberals don't seem to dislike him even though the guy has such conservative views! If anything Huntsman shows flaws in a lot of Liberals as well...so the guy believes in climate change and the allowance of gay marriage...the guy is such an economic conservative.

 

[AdamT]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

How does the son of a billionaire businessman and owner of the Huntsman Corporation relate to the average citizen?

The wealthy are already far over-represented in Congress!

Hey, come on now, Huntsman worked his way up ... all the way from his first job out of college, as Vice President of Huntsman Corporation. He just needs to get the word out about what an average Joe he is. Fortunately his billionaire dad is funding a super pac for just that reason.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Zyphlin]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Looks like he's starting to get smarter about his messaging. The question is... will it work?

Huntsman makes a new push for conservatives | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

The more I read about this guy the more it confounds me that his support is so low.

I had to laugh at this quote from a Hot Air piece:

Huntsman is the Bizarro candidate, a Frankenstein monster seemingly assembled out of the worst features of his major rivals. If you squint hard enough, what he is doing is recognizable as a political campaign, just not one you would expect to see on this planet.

 

[Dav]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

I had to laugh at this quote from a Hot Air piece:

Yeah, saw that earlier (I read HotAir daily). I think he was referring to the Huntsman campaign, though, given the rest of the article. Which may have been true once but doesn't seem to be anymore.

The only thing that gives me hope right now is that if Newt soared from the low-single-digits to frontrunner status, maybe Huntsman can too. He needs to do really well in NH to get on the radar though... and right now he's polling 4th there, and dead last everywhere else.

 

[Dav]

Re: Republicans ... Do you even comprehend what an outstanding candidate you have ...

Even Erick Erickson, the rightiest righty in all of Rightopia, is warming up to Huntsman:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/07/my-confession/

But if Perry is not ready, I have to say I may have to seriously reconsider saying I’d never, ever, never vote for Jon Huntsman. He is more consistently conservative than either Newt or Romney, more pro-life than either, and a far more competent executive than either. He and Perry also are very real and sincere family men. Jon Huntsman clearly adores his family and I have concluded, despite my own misgivings about him, that he would govern more consistently to the right of Mitt Romney than even his campaign team would have us believe.

I’ll support the nominee. Any of the Republicans will be better than Obama, regardless of the number of wives.

I’m just not yet at a position where I think I can look myself in the mirror and be comfortable knowing I voted for a guy on his third wife who cheated on the first two. Honestly, it is more the cheating than the number of marriages. And even after moving his letter from the Baptist to the Catholic church, it seems he may have settled down on the marital front, but he’s still cheating on conservatives.

I skimmed the comments and they were surprisingly positive about Huntsman, which is new. I dunno, maybe there's still hope.

Most of them are along the lines of "I like Huntsman... but he doesn't have enough support to win," though. Which is sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think about it.