Top Dem picks Huntsman

disneydude said:

Plus....do you REALLY think that America is really ready to give complete power back to the party that got us into this mess in the first place?
Seriously?

Click to expand...

The GOP didn't, that's where your fail begins, it ends with thinking it's getting better under Obama's "leadership"

MrVicchio said:

The GOP didn't, that's where your fail begins, it ends with thinking it's getting better under Obama's "leadership"

Click to expand...

Oh c'mon Vich.....even the most partisan person has to admit that the latest mess is a result of GWB and the GOP.....the best you can argue is that you would do it better the next time...but to deny responsibility for screwing up the country is just plain and simply denial.

MrVicchio said:

The GOP didn't, that's where your fail begins, it ends with thinking it's getting better under Obama's "leadership"

Click to expand...

Gringrich's repeal of the GSA says otherwise. Not to mention the loose monetary policy of Greenspan. And the overall reduction in any enforcement of regulation by the SEC under Dubya.

obvious Child said:

Gringrich's repeal of the GSA says otherwise. Not to mention the loose monetary policy of Greenspan. And the overall reduction in any enforcement of regulation by the SEC under Dubya.

Click to expand...

Uh huh. Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac, that's where the blame lies, and in the Glass Stegal Act being repealed, in fact the seeds were planted for this mess in the Community reInvestment Act. But that would require a knowledge of what was going on, not "out of my ass" commentary.

MrVicchio said:

Uh huh. Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac, that's where the blame lies, and in the Glass Stegal Act being repealed, in fact the seeds were planted for this mess in the Community reInvestment Act.

Click to expand...

CRA predates GSA by at least two decades. Dates fo sho'!

Btw, nice subtle argument that Gingrich isn't a Republican. Dishonest? Of course. Expected from you? Absolutely.

But that would require a knowledge of what was going on, not "out of my ass" commentary.

Click to expand...

See above. Btw, you should get an air freshner.

Councilman said:

Could there me more to this than meets the eye?

What good reason could Reid have for endorsing a Republican?

Could it be that Reid wants someone to run he believes Obama can beat?

Or is it a chance to play the Mormon card?

We went through this with JFK and people playing the Catholic card which in the end was a specious argument and had no affect on his day to day running of the Oval Office.

Click to expand...

The fact a democrat is showing support for Huntsman is a pretty good sign that the man is a RINO.

obvious Child said:

CRA predates GSA by at least two decades. Dates fo sho'!

Btw, nice subtle argument that Gingrich isn't a Republican. Dishonest? Of course. Expected from you? Absolutely.

Click to expand...

Where in did I imply Gingrich wasn't a Republican? I swear, you just post **** that fits whatever narrative you decide you want to pursue that day. For several days, despite being shown your errors, you keep implying I'm saying things I never said to make oyur silliness look better.

Further more, you again show you don't know what you are talking about.

The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by a Republican majority, basically following party lines by a 54–44 vote in the Senate[19] and by a bi-partisan 343–86 vote in the House of Representatives.[20] After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90–8 (one not voting) and in the House: 362–57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[21]
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass–Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the cases for and against preserving the Glass–Steagall act.[18

Click to expand...

Glass

Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is."[72]

Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

obvious Child said:

See above. Btw, you should get an air freshner.

Click to expand...

I'm refuting DD's comments this is all the making of GWB and the GOP during his years as President. You come bumbling in here, trying to hammer on me...

Gingrich had nothing to do with the repeal of the GSA, it happened AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.

Welcome to history, I know mine, once again you prove you do not. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?

jamesrage said:

The fact a democrat is showing support for Huntsman is a pretty good sign that the man is a RINO.

Click to expand...

Awesome, good to know you view Reagan as a RINO since he had a fair bit of Democrat support

disneydude said:

I disagree.....the Republicans ran in 2010 under a JObs JObs Jobs banner.....if they don't deliver...I can't see America giving power to the GOP in the whitehouse and the congress....if they haven't done anything since taking over the congress.

Click to expand...

Shocked, truly shocked you disagree and can't see any way that they'd ever give the GOP power. Really, never would've expected that from you or your immediete attempt to go "Bush bush bush" for another election cycle a few posts later.

Is it garaunteed the Republicans take it? No. But its a ludicrous notion to suggest that 2 years with 1/3 of government with little change is going to damn the Republicans when we have tanigble historical examples in just the past few years of instances where a party has even more than that and didn't get stuff accomplished they promised to do and still were supported. But I know, I know, its "different" because these guys have the big evil horrible greedy R next to their names

Zyphlin said:

Shocked, truly shocked you disagree and can't see any way that they'd ever give the GOP power. Really, never would've expected that from you or your immediete attempt to go "Bush bush bush" for another election cycle a few posts later.

Is it garaunteed the Republicans take it? No. But its a ludicrous notion to suggest that 2 years with 1/3 of government with little change is going to damn the Republicans when we have tanigble historical examples in just the past few years of instances where a party has even more than that and didn't get stuff accomplished they promised to do and still were supported. But I know, I know, its "different" because these guys have the big evil horrible greedy R next to their names

Click to expand...

But Zyph....the GOP hasn't delivered zip since taking over Congress.....they haven't even tried to put anything forward. They were big on talk....but short on actions. How are they going to run on Boner's jobs jobs jobs...when they have offered no solutions?

Indeed, they've not been able to do much since taking The House. That said, when the Democrats actually did take Congress the two years between election and president election they ran on The WOT, Immigration, Corruption, and Economy.

They couldn't get a pull out like they campaigned on, they couldn't get Gitmo closed, they couldn't get a Path to Citizenship, they didn't "drain the swamp", and the economy continued to worsen from 2006 to 2008.

And yet, despite the Democrats being short on tangible actions, they won seats in both houses in 2008.

That's when they actually DID have Congress, rather than your erronious suggestion that the Republicans "have congress" now when they only have 1/2 of it. And somehow their utter and complete failure didn't hurt the Democrats.

But shocker of all shockers, in a similar situation dealing with Republicans where they have even less power than the Dem's did at that point, Disney "can't see a way" it would even be possible that Republicans do well in 2012.

disneydude said:

But Zyph....the GOP hasn't delivered zip since taking over Congress.....they haven't even tried to put anything forward. They were big on talk....but short on actions. How are they going to run on Boner's jobs jobs jobs...when they have offered no solutions?

Click to expand...

IMO, while the election probably leans toward President Obama's re-election at this point in time e.g., based on polling, that outcome is not assured. For starters, the Republican field is still fragmented though Governor Romney has built somewhat of a lead. More importantly, the President is probably more vulnerable than most incumbents on account of a still sluggish economy. Structural factors (debt overhang, impact of an asset-bust-driven recession, emergent competitiveness issues, etc.) will likely promote below-trend growth for the time being. Some headwinds from abroad could also further undercut growth.

Nevertheless, the state of the economy and its near-term prospects will almost certainly be the defining issue. If the unemployment rate is elevated but is on a downward path, I believe he will have a reasonable chance to be re-elected. If the unemployment rate is elevated, but is steady or even rising, his prospects for re-election will be markedly reduced. The public will be looking ahead and narratives about the past will be less relevant.

Other factors will also shape the outcome. For example, if the Republicans nominate a weak candidate (one who has only narrow appeal, ineffective communication skills, and/or lack of credible experience, etc.), the President's prospects would be enhanced. The same would hold true if Republicans are divided. If a self-inflicted debt crisis erupts over an inability to raise the debt ceiling in a timely fashion, the party that is blamed for the outcome--good intentions would be irrelevant--would likely face a decisive defeat, as the aftermath would include higher risk premia that would add to the nation's structural imbalances via debt service costs and foregone revenue due to a higher cost of capital and slower macroeconomic growth. Most default scenarios would probably cut against the Republicans, the single exception being a short default followed by substantial fiscal consolidation (unlikely). The most likely default scenario would probably be a short default followed by inconclusive fiscal consolidation (lack of a revenue side contribution would likely lead to a lack of mandatory spending reforms). A crisis would force a rapid agreement to raise the debt ceiling even in the absence of significant fiscal consolidation. Neither party would be inclined to drag out such a crisis.

I still believe that an agreement to raise the debt ceiling coupled with modest fiscal consolidation (larger items would be expressed in terms of goals, targets, caps, etc., for which policy details would need to be devised later) is still the most likely outcome, even in the face of the current suspension of negotiations.

disneydude said:

But Zyph....the GOP hasn't delivered zip since taking over Congress.....they haven't even tried to put anything forward. They were big on talk....but short on actions. How are they going to run on Boner's jobs jobs jobs...when they have offered no solutions?

Click to expand...

What have the Dems delivered?

I actually prefer Huntsman more than Obama. He's a moderate Republican, fiscal conservative and liberal on political issues (like me)

danarhea said:

Huntsman seems to be a very pragmatic individual, who puts whats good for the nation ahead of political party. He was Obama's Ambassador to China. He wasn't picked for political reasons, but because he is fluent in 2 dialects of Chinese. He is not a religious zealot either. Although he is Mormon, he is raising an adopted child according to her Hindu beliefs. Huntsman is not a birther nutter either, nor does he bash Obama only for the sake of bashing Obama, but his arguments are based on reality. He represents mainstream America more than any other Republican candidate.

For the above reasons, I believe that Huntsman has the ability to siphon off moderate Democrats, and I believe that Obama has plenty to be worried about if Huntsman is nominated. The question is whether or not Huntsman can keep the idealogue base. Based on their hatred of Obama, I believe that they will come out and vote for Huntsman.

IMHO, Huntsman is an excellent choice for the GOP.

Click to expand...

Lucky for us dems though he's too moderate to ever get nominated by the wackos in the GOP.

Zyphlin said:

I'm going to laugh if Huntsman wins, gets in office, and along with the Congress redoes the tax code into a flat tax type of situtaion that reduces taxes on everyone to some degree including "the rich", removes restrictive regulation on businesses through business friendly laws/regulation/agency heads, appoints conservative judges that believe in a right to life, chooses to secure the border first before even trying to talk about some kind of "path to citizenship", signs the repeal of Obamacare and then signs a Republican backed reform focused on market incentives and working through private sector solutions, impliments greater choice in education through a voucher program, and significantly cuts the budget and reforms entitlements similar to the Ryan plan.

Click to expand...

Half of the fixes above cannot be done without trampling on state's rights.

Zyphlin said:

Not really. The Republicans have 1 of the 3 important branches to get anything done, and most people voting at least know Presidents have Veto power and that things must go through both houses. Its far easier for the Republicans to say they've not been given a chance to really implement their plans in 2012 than Democrats could honestly do in 2010.

It'd be more like 2008, when things didn't get much better under a Democrat ran ENTIRE congress and they blamed it on a troublesome President.

Click to expand...

The problem with Repubs right now is that they aren't willing to compromise period. Dems put up 2trillion in cuts over the next 10years and Cantor still walks out over closing loopholes aka "tax hikes"

MrVicchio said:

Uh huh. Freddie Mae, Fannie Mac, that's where the blame lies, and in the Glass Stegal Act being repealed, in fact the seeds were planted for this mess in the Community reInvestment Act. But that would require a knowledge of what was going on, not "out of my ass" commentary.

Click to expand...

Both parties loved Freddie and Fannie. Bush used it to make the bubble bigger, just like Clinton did.

Zyphlin said:

Awesome, good to know you view Reagan as a RINO since he had a fair bit of Democrat support

Click to expand...

Read my sig. Thats the GOP today.

MrVicchio said:

Where in did I imply Gingrich wasn't a Republican?

Click to expand...

The whole part where you just ignored how Gringrich was a driver behind the GSA's repeal. And your whole refusal to blame Republicans for anything.

I swear, you just post **** that fits whatever narrative you decide you want to pursue that day. For several days, despite being shown your errors, you keep implying I'm saying things I never said to make oyur silliness look better.

Click to expand...

See above. Try to post a response with less fail. Kthxbye.

Further more, you again show you don't know what you are talking about.

Click to expand...

Look Kids: Mr. V is going to post more links which refute himself.

Oh wait Mr. V. I thought it was just Democrats! You just cited REPUBLICANS repealing one of the laws that would have prevented this mess!

I guess by your argument, if you weren't around for the signing, you had absolutely no impact at all upon the event. eace

Let's ponder just how idiotic that argument really is.

I'm refuting DD's comments this is all the making of GWB and the GOP during his years as President. You come bumbling in here, trying to hammer on me.

Click to expand...

And you outright refuse to blame a party equally at fault for this mess. You are just as bad as him.

Gingrich had nothing to do with the repeal of the GSA, it happened AFTER HE LEFT OFFICE.

Click to expand...

Let's see if you'll fall for this.

So the Republicans during January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999 did absolutely nothing to repeal the GSA? There were no attempts at all to loosen or repeal it at all?

Let's see non-thinking at it's best. And let's not forget the REST of the Republicans like Representative Jim Leach.

Welcome to history, I know mine, once again you prove you do not. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself like this?

Click to expand...

Really? I'm not using the logic of "if he wasn't there to sign it, he had no impact at all" argument. (despite previous attempts to repeal under his leadership).

obvious Child said:

The whole part where you just ignored how Gringrich was a driver behind the GSA's repeal. And your whole refusal to blame Republicans for anything.



See above. Try to post a response with less fail. Kthxbye.



Look Kids: Mr. V is going to post more links which refute himself.

Oh wait Mr. V. I thought it was just Democrats! You just cited REPUBLICANS repealing one of the laws that would have prevented this mess!

I guess by your argument, if you weren't around for the signing, you had absolutely no impact at all upon the event. eace

Let's ponder just how idiotic that argument really is.



And you outright refuse to blame a party equally at fault for this mess. You are just as bad as him.



Let's see if you'll fall for this.

So the Republicans during January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999 did absolutely nothing to repeal the GSA? There were no attempts at all to loosen or repeal it at all?

Let's see non-thinking at it's best. And let's not forget the REST of the Republicans like Representative Jim Leach.



Really? I'm not using the logic of "if he wasn't there to sign it, he had no impact at all" argument. (despite previous attempts to repeal under his leadership).

Click to expand...

oC, in mad desperation trying to move goal posts to make himself not look... foolish.

Gingrich wasn't even a MEMBER of the HOUSE when the act was Repealed. Carry on with your bad self, I've proven you are dishonest, lack integrity and have no grasp on history, you inject opinion and commentary others did not make to hammer them on (this I believe is refereed to as a "strawman") and when confronted with such irrefutable evidence that your claim Gingrich was responsible for the passing of the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act, you instead try to change oyur claim to "He was part of the House at one point...

Yeah, one point PRIOR to the bill that repealed the act even being sponsored, and signed.

Give it up oC, I grow weary of correcting your abundant errors.

MrVicchio said:

oC, in mad desperation trying to move goal posts to make himself not look... foolish.

Click to expand...

Not really. Still see you refusing to address how you refuse to blame Republicans...which was my original point. Goal post moved nowhere.

Gingrich wasn't even a MEMBER of the HOUSE when the act was Repealed.

Click to expand...

Therefore, by your logic, everything every member of our government cannot be tied back to them because they weren't in office when it happened?

You really want to run with that? Not the mention the fact that under Gringrich the GOP tried to repeal/loosen the GSA multiple times. I see you outright do not want to talk about that at all going so far as to pretend absolutely nothing about the GSA occurred under his leadership.

Want to keep that up? eace I can start citing actual proposals that died during his majority leadership. Guess why I named Leach. There's a reason.

Carry on with your bad self, I've proven you are dishonest, lack integrity and have no grasp on history, you inject opinion and commentary others did not make to hammer them on

Click to expand...

Says the one who called Emissions trading a successful reduction in emissions wrong and then posted a link showing that cap and trade actually reduced emissions. And the guy deliberately going out of his way to pretend absolutely nothing about the GSA occurred between the time periods I gave. Hint: You might want to look up 1995. Gingrich even discussed the chances for success of repeal of the GSA with several Republicans. But you won't ever admit that. Because you'd have to admit you were (1) wrong in calling me dishonest and (2) admit you are wrong about the Republicans not having any blame for this mess. You'll never do either.

(this I believe is refereed to as a "strawman") and when confronted with such irrefutable evidence that your claim Gingrich was responsible for the passing of the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act, you instead try to change oyur claim to "He was part of the House at one point

Click to expand...

You mean like several of the bills that were proposed and pushed during his time? Several of which he held close talks with to get them passed?

Oh wait....that would require you to be honest to discuss those. Never going to happen.

Yeah, one point PRIOR to the bill that repealed the act even being sponsored, and signed.

Click to expand...

Actually more then one. But at least you're starting to admit he did play a role. But your idiot logic of "wasn't there to sign, had no impact" is asinine. By your logic, Clinton is in no way responsible for 9/11 as he wasn't President on the day of the attacks.

Give it up oC, I grow weary of correcting your abundant errors.

Click to expand...

Name one. And one you can actually prove. You know, where you don't have to run in circles to avoid the 1995 bill where Gingrich had close talks to repeal the GSA?

Btw, thanks for using google. It's obvious you started off without researching and then looked it up and realized that he clearly DID do something to get the GSA repealed.

Now, I actually start with Google. You should try that method.

oC logic in action.

Previous Presidents, prior to 1865 allowed Slavery to be Free, ergo Obama supports Slavery.

MrVicchio said:

oC logic in action.

Previous Presidents, prior to 1865 allowed Slavery to be Free, ergo Obama supports Slavery.

Click to expand...

Come again? That was completely nonsensical. I'm pointing out your earlier asinine logic is asinine because it refuses to assign any credit to politicians who worked on specific proposals which later were passed when they left office. Your new stupid completely illogical view in that post assigns blame to politicians for not fixing something prior to their existence on the notion that prior presidents allowed something. That does not make sense. At all.

If you're going to snipe, at least the base logic correct.

Spaceman_Spiff said:

So then your answer is that you have no proof of any of the accusations you have made thus far in this thread. I had that inkling that you did not, but now I know for sure.

Beyond this post do not respond to my posts unless you are going to answer the questions I have previously asked you. At least this way we will both save ourselves a lot of time.

Click to expand...

So it is all coincidence? HAHAHAHA that is funny

ptif219 said:

So it is all coincidence? HAHAHAHA that is funny

Click to expand...

Well since you insist in bringing up the ties between the hunstman and Ried family, shall we talk about the connections between the Bush and the Bin Laden family?

disneydude said:

No even close....to suggest such is laughable. The GOP has moved so extreme right over the last two decades that the party is completely out of the mainstream of America.

Click to expand...

You must know a different GOP then I do. Just under Bush both Bush and the GOP congress moved left.

disneydude said:

Although this will be an interesting election....it is going to be hard for Republicans to retain congress while trying to argue that we need to change direction. If the economy is still struggling, it doesn't speak well for the Republicans that said, give us congress and we will make things better. The Republican congress hasn't done **** since gaining control....except for trying to appease the right-wing with their social agenda items. What happened to Boner's jobs jobs jobs cry?

Click to expand...

The GOP does not have control of congress. They still can not get Reid to pass anything