I would have gone with Pennsylvania, personally.
Why not be different, do it in Montana.
A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.
I would have gone with Pennsylvania, personally.
Because there are more voters in Philly than all of Montana (and Wyoming combined).
They really don't place the conventions in places where they're hoping for votes; they're placed because of political connections and cities wanting an economic boost from all the people that come in. Perfect example is the Republicans hosting their 2004 convention in NYC, not exactly a hotbed of their constituency.Agreed, because hosting the DNC convention in Charlotte, NC did such a great job for Obama in that state. I doubt that simply hosting the RNC convention in Ohio will do wonders for them.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5568058?utm_hp_ref=twIn a condemnatory speech last week against the Obama administrations new Environmental Protection Agency carbon emission regulations, Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith (R) claimed that man-made climate change is scientifically implausible because Mars and Earth share exactly the same temperature.
Smith, the owner of a mining company called Mohawk Energy, argued that despite the fact that the red planet doesnt have any coal mines, Mars and Earth share a temperature. Therefore, Smith reasoned, coal companies on Earth should be exempt from emission regulations.
During a Natural Resources and Environment Committee meeting Thursday, Smith, the Senate majority whip, said:
"As you [Energy & Environment Cabinet official] sit there in your chair with your data, we sit up here in ours with our data and our constituents and stuff behind us. I wont get into the debate about climate change but Ill simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. Theres no factories on Mars that Im aware of."
According to NASA, the average temperature on Earth is 57 degrees Fahrenheit -- 138 degrees above Mars' average of -81 degrees.
GOP Lawmaker Says Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature
I know a couple of girls that worked at the Hooters that was by the convention center during the last RNC. They were specifically told to not discuss politics with anyone no matter what. I imagine that would be the case in a lot of restaurants when one of these conventions is held near them for either party
I could be wrong here but I think he ment that the temperature was warming up on Mars as it is on the Earth. Somebody should have asked a follow up question to make sure what he is saying
GOP Lawmaker Says Climate Change A Hoax Because Earth And Mars Have 'Exactly' Same Temperature
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5568058?utm_hp_ref=tw
Well, we know this guy slept through science class.
I know a couple of girls that worked at the Hooters that was by the convention center during the last RNC. They were specifically told to not discuss politics with anyone no matter what. I imagine that would be the case in a lot of restaurants when one of these conventions is held near them for either party
Everybody Is Going Crazy Buying Up Weird .gop Domains Today
Feel free to go here:
https://www.join.gop/
And get yourself that .gop domain you have always dreamed of!
They just can't figure out how to implement and pay for them without raising taxes up the wazoo. It's really time for the government to figure out what's actually worth paying for and getting rid of ridiculous waste and pork barrel spending. For me, the government does not need to do or provide stuff that most people could easily pay for out of their own pocket but is only doing so because of bad decisions and/or political favoring.Quite frankly, given some of their positions, incoherent is actually a good idea.
Tax cuts, no new taxes, no minimum wage increase ever, no to gay marriage, less regulations (read: less safe drinking water, and more exploding fertilizer plants), no new infrastructure, no healthcare, no action on climate change...
Unless you're a Darwinist anarchist, their current platform is terrible. If they actually made a list of everything they are for (or, against really) no one who isn't a social crusader would vote for them. And even some of those "culture warriors" probably want safe drinking water.
Granted, the Democrats have some bad ideas, but they do actually have some constructive ones.
Considering all the factions within the GOP coming up with a coherent political philosophy is going to be extremely difficult. The GOP is really just an alliance of various right-winged ideologies, many of which just do not get along with one another.Wow, this seems like the dumbest idea the party has ever considered. They need to work on building a coherent political philosophy instead of creating gimmicks that can only backfire on them.
Considering all the factions within the GOP coming up with a coherent political philosophy is going to be extremely difficult. The GOP is really just an alliance of various right-winged ideologies, many of which just do not get along with one another.
Quite frankly, given some of their positions, incoherent is actually a good idea.
Tax cuts, no new taxes, no minimum wage increase ever, no to gay marriage, less regulations (read: less safe drinking water, and more exploding fertilizer plants), no new infrastructure, no healthcare, no action on climate change...
Unless you're a Darwinist anarchist, their current platform is terrible. If they actually made a list of everything they are for (or, against really) no one who isn't a social crusader would vote for them. And even some of those "culture warriors" probably want safe drinking water.
Granted, the Democrats have some bad ideas, but they do actually have some constructive ones.
I think you're too smart to always resort to soundbite rhetoric to demagogue the other side. I can do just as easily for Democrats:
More taxes, stronger IRS, gay marriage, mandatory alternative sex ed in all schools, no legal borders, more welfare, foreign energy dependency, ,more eminent domain, subsidized abortions, less property rights, more free marijuana, consumer micromanagement, more industry litigation, larger Cabinet, more affirmative action agencies, more economic planning
See how easy that was. Why don't we analyze the party based on objectives and their reported results?
I think the problem for me is Republicans seem to love talking in soundbites(ie "less Big Government" or "get rid of regulations") so unless they feel like explaining themselves(ie which aspects of Big government they dislike or what regulations they want to get rid of) you have to take them at face value that they hate all of them because in general they seem to hate talking in specifics.
I never heard Democrats come out and say anything you mention. Whenever they do campaign on something it's not "more Taxes"<end of statement> it's more taxes on any money over 1M dollars, or tax something specific which is a huge difference from just the plan old "more taxes"
There was a time when Democratic Presidential candidates openly campaigned on raising taxes:
Walter Mondale "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes...and so will I."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07m39CQRJXw
Democrats have gotten smarter on pushing forward tax increases. They won't raise income taxes on middle class folks...oh no. They will place taxes on products and services that they mandate you to buy. Not only insurance penalties...but reinsurance and PCORI taxes that are added on insurance premiums..in addition to higher insurance premiums due to increased mandatory benefits...including ones you can't use (can single man use maternity care or pediatric care?)....ah yes...Democrats...shuffle the money around...and let the squeeze begin.
The GOP is actually far more split than that. You have your Rockefeller Republicans who are economically centrist and socially liberal, your evangelicals, your neo-conservatives (who are currently being treated as the red-headed step child), libertarian Paul Republicans, etc. It's very hard to come up with a coherent strategy with all of those competing factions and thus why we see a lot of Republicans such as Paul Ryan come off as very inconsistent.The Tea Party and neo-conservatives are only split on spending but it's such a wedge issue that it's causing the Tea Party to attempt a full-blown mutiny (good luck with that).
The Religious Right doesn't make waves in the GOP unless they feel their agenda is being ignored.
That just leaves the Libertarians, the red-headed step child. I don't see them getting gaining much power within the GOP without revamping their stance on social issues which isn't really an option.
Overall I see three major sects (neo-cons, tea party, libertarians) fighting for the soul of the GOP and I don't see any of them budging any time soon.