RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck

RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Kirata -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 11:40:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If I recall you're in Florida. As a registered independent you can't vote in a republican primary or unlikely in any primary unless I'm mistaken about that. You're not mistaken. I meant a candidate that I could vote for in the election. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 10:08:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: 1) Are any of these candidates really who you would want running your country? As a Republican, I will be voting for Huntsman in the primary, and hopefully for him in the general election. If he doesn't make it, I'll either vote for a strong third party candidate (unlikely to happen) or vote for Obama. quote: 2) Would any of them be your first choice regardless of who else was running? I did hope someone else ran, but Huntsman will be good enough. quote: 3) Who would you have preferred to see run? I would have liked it if Bloomberg ran as a Republican. Your vote for Huntsman and your wish on Bloomberg show that you arent really a Republican. Huntsman is the one in the wrong party, not Bloomberg.

MedicineMan -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 10:16:04 AM)
Ron Paul. But remember that he is an unusual Republican. He is a Constitutionalist. As for other candidates, I also agree with RP, who is practically ruling out endorsing anyone.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 10:16:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin The guys you're talking about are a problem as far as I'm concerned because of their less than conservative / moderate dogma. They don't always stand for what I have understood was republican philosophy. And I really would have to see that Gallup poll because I don't believe it. In fact if the poll really shows that I would guess there were a bunch of liars taking part in it. I'd call the people you're talking about banner-wavers: people who hold party over country. But hey, different strokes for different folks. In either case, here's the poll results I was talking about. In the cross tabs, you can see the precent of conservatives that approve of the President's performance. The past four results have put the percentages at 24%, 22%, 24%, and 21%. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx By the way, just because you dislike the results of something, doesn't mean it is a lie. Be careful with that term. They must have an interesting defintion of "conservative". Conservative republicans are at 8%. Even if every independent who approved of his performance was classified as "conservative" it wouldnt drag the total conservative number up to 25%. And if they are counting any Democrat as "conservative" based on some sort of self identification, its a silly label.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 12:11:13 PM)
quote: Your vote for Huntsman and your wish on Bloomberg show that you arent really a Republican. You know, that's really pathetic.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 12:55:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: Your vote for Huntsman and your wish on Bloomberg show that you arent really a Republican. You know, that's really pathetic. It may be "pathetic" but it is the truth.

Lucylastic -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 12:58:05 PM)
Its only YOUR" opinion", which isnt truth

tazzygirl -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 12:59:49 PM)
Seeing a lot of that lately.

HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:02:48 PM)
quote: It may be "pathetic" but it is the truth. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe they are the real Republicans and you're not?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather quote: It may be "pathetic" but it is the truth. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe they are the real Republicans and you're not? No, because Im not a "Republican" per se.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:30:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy They must have an interesting defintion of "conservative". Conservative republicans are at 8%. Even if every independent who approved of his performance was classified as "conservative" it wouldnt drag the total conservative number up to 25%. And if they are counting any Democrat as "conservative" based on some sort of self identification, its a silly label. So we have two possibilities. 1. Your view of what constitutes genuine conservatism is objectively correct and a verifiable fact. Conversely, the polling methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is flat-out wrong. Or 2. The methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is essentially sound, while your thoughts on conservatism, valid as your own personal opinion, might run into fair disagreement with others who old equally valid, albeit different opinions on the subject.

Lucylastic -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:32:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha So we have two possibilities. 1. Your view of what constitutes genuine conservatism is objectively correct and a verifiable fact. Conversely, the polling methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is flat-out wrong. Or 2. The methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is essentially sound, while your thoughts on conservatism, valid as your own personal opinion, might run into fair disagreement with others who old equally valid, albeit different opinions on the subject. [:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy They must have an interesting defintion of "conservative". Conservative republicans are at 8%. Even if every independent who approved of his performance was classified as "conservative" it wouldnt drag the total conservative number up to 25%. And if they are counting any Democrat as "conservative" based on some sort of self identification, its a silly label. So we have two possibilities. 1. Your view of what constitutes genuine conservatism is objectively correct and a verifiable fact. Conversely, the polling methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is flat-out wrong. Or 2. The methodology of a well-respected and award winning polling firm is essentially sound, while your thoughts on conservatism, valid as your own personal opinion, might run into fair disagreement with others who old equally valid, albeit different opinions on the subject. I know my thoughts on conservatism are well in line with most conservative's positions, except in some areas where I am considerably more liberal than they are. This isnt the only place where politics is discussed, and Im not exactly new at the game. Now to your false dichotomy....they dont need to be "flat out wrong" to accept pollee's self-designation of what their views are. They are a polling organization and make no attempt to actually affirm those self-designations. But anyone with a simple understanding of math knows that those figures are impossible to be internally consistent unless they accepted a shitload of "conservative Democrats" or their sampling was totally unrepresentative of the overall population. For example, someone who thinks Huntsman and Bloomberg's policies arent more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans, and someone who could even dream of voting for Obama for anything other than as an anti-Bush vote and because it was "historical" (issues that are no longer relevant) is NOT a Republican, no matter what their self view is.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:42:03 PM)
Looks like we're going with number one, then. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I am considerably more liberal No comment, I just wanted to preserve this particular line in a quote.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 1:58:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha Looks like we're going with number one, then. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I am considerably more liberal No comment, I just wanted to preserve this particular line in a quote. Go with whatever you like, 1 and 2 are not the only possiblities, as I showed. Not sure why you would want to preserve it, but on the politcal compass Im at 3/4 on economics and almost dead center on social issues. Try it....in fact I'll start a separate thread about it.

BanthaSamantha -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 2:14:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Go with whatever you like, 1 and 2 are not the only possiblities, as I showed. Your previous post showed that you closely hew to option one. Take a look. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Now to your false dichotomy....they dont need to be "flat out wrong" to accept pollee's self-designation of what their views are. They are a polling organization and make no attempt to actually affirm those self-designations. But anyone with a simple understanding of math knows that those figures are impossible to be internally consistent unless they accepted a shitload of "conservative Democrats" or their sampling was totally unrepresentative of the overall population. In this part of your post, you are outlining the methodological flaws of the Gallup survey. You give two alternate scenarios: one in which the poll is flawed by an unrepresentative sample, and another in which it is flawed by including "conservative Democrats" as conservatives. In either case, you're saying Gallup's methods are deeply flawed. quote: For example, someone who thinks Huntsman and Bloomberg's policies arent more closely aligned with Democrats than Republicans, and someone who could even dream of voting for Obama for anything other than as an anti-Bush vote and because it was "historical" (issues that are no longer relevant) is NOT a Republican, no matter what their self view is. Here, you detail how your personal opinions on the subject are essentially immutable fact. You cite that, despite one's personal opinions on whether they they belong to a specific ideology, they definitely don't belong if their opinions don't line up with yours. In either case, you're saying that their personal opinions are wrong and your personal opinions are right.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 2:59:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BanthaSamantha In this part of your post, you are outlining the methodological flaws of the Gallup survey. You give two alternate scenarios: one in which the poll is flawed by an unrepresentative sample, and another in which it is flawed by including "conservative Democrats" as conservatives. In either case, you're saying Gallup's methods are deeply flawed. sorry I wasnt clear...it is people's self assessments that are flawed, hence the other thread.

lovmuffin -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 4:47:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If I recall you're in Florida. As a registered independent you can't vote in a republican primary or unlikely in any primary unless I'm mistaken about that. You're not mistaken. I meant a candidate that I could vote for in the election. K. LOL yes I figured that but I was just curious why you would register independent when there are no primaries you can vote in as apposed to registering republican or democrat where you could at least vote. I would call myself and independent too (conservative one) but I want to vote in the primaries as I'm likely to vote for a republican in the general.

MrRodgers -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 5:05:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy I'll respond as a conservative, which isnt the same as a Republican. 1) Romney, Gingrich, ABO 2) Romney 3) No one else for 2012. There is a fantastic crop of up and coming conservatives but they arent ready for prime time, just as Obama has proven he isnt. I don't know. If a new repub pres. must deal with dems in the senate (only need 41) whose first priority of course, should be to get him right back out, I see cloture...everyday and he'll get nothing through. Let's see just how much of a rookie he'll be when the same reasons and by these new terms...he'd be 'terribly out of his league, unprepared and incompetent.' The dems should be all over absolutely everything he does as the wrong thing to do...just like the right now on Obama. Frankly, I wouldn't like to see that but Obama should have to win to prevent it.

outhere69 -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/5/2011 5:44:16 PM)
Sometimes it looks to me like the party is fixated on an "anti-Obama" and absolutely no other qualification. In addition you've got folks that are slightly left to the Tea Party being dissed as RINOs. I can see how a really conservative candidate would mobilize a small, but dedicated part of the party, yet I don't see how they could garner enough of the vote to win. Personally, I'd find it refreshing if a Republican candidate would break from the Norquist club; congresscritters take an oath to the Constitution, not a guy who dreamed up his "pledge" as a branding campaign.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875