Discussion: The REPUBLICAN Party

[Kelly]

Why is he being asked?
Why does it matter?

Had I been asked the question, I would have answered...I believe Obama has said that he is a Christian, so I can only take him at his word. NOW...can we get to the questions that the voters actually care about?

 

[Kelly]

Here is my guess at Walker's answer: I don't know



What's the use of asking Hillary if Obama is a Christian, my guess is she won't answer "I Don't Know".



I think questions like this give us more incite to Walker then if we asked him about policy and he just rolled off some BS answer full of statistics or points that are cherry picked to support his agenda. At least with a question like this it's much harder for him to try talk his way out of it without looking bad

In all honesty if he just answered the Evolution question a week ago or the one about Giuliani(who at a fundraiser of his said Obama hates America), I think he wouldn't open himself up to future questions like the do you think Obama is a Christian. It would be a case his answer would fly under the radar and nothing would be made out of it. Instead he is turning into the guy who can't answer simple questions by actually having an opinion

*sighs*

My point in asking Hilary and others is NOT that they should be asked, simply that they haven't and why should they be asked.... NOBODY CARES. The point was THEY AREN'T BEING ASKED these stupid ass questions. Should Obama be asked if he thinks that Biden is a dumb ass because of all the stupid things he has said in the last 6 years? NO....because people don't care.

This is not People Magazine, or ET asking these questions, it is our MEDIA...that should be above crap and asking the pointed questions that voters actually need to know the answer to in order to choose a candidate. These questions everyone knows how they think...and those that actually care about these answers have already made up their minds, because it is the R and the D that matter most to them anyway.

How they think about these specific issues is not going to change a vote of a swing voter....if it did, then these people are not swing voters and their vote was not actually changed, they are zealots on either end of the political/social spectrum and that would not change their vote anyway, they are going to vote for the D or the R no matter what. I am a swing voter.... I have, as many have, voted democrat more often than republican in national elections, BUT... what swings our vote is not evolution or religion, it is foreign policy and the economy. Foreign Policy can hurt or help the incumbent because we have seen how their mind works in that area....the economy can hurt or help the newbie (especially if he/she is a governor) because we can see how his/her mind works. OR, the swing voter really sees no difference in either candidate and therefore goes a 3rd route or skips the President...and move down to other state and local issues. What helps ALL at this point since there is not an incumbent is to have a well thought out plan usually no more than 10 points for our economy, jobs, etc as far as domestic policy. And have a good solid understanding of what is going on around the world, as far as conflicts and economies. Specific policy is not necessarily needed here, because they are not privy to the information that the President gets. But a strong knowledge of foreign policy is certainly a must.

So, when the media starts asking those types of questions, then I will give a crap and listen.

 

[summerteeth]

How about an answer of a simple "Yes" since that's what he is?

To be fair people on the left have questioned whether or not he is really a Christian or if he just says so for political reasons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/24/bill_maher_obama_is_a_drop_dead_atheist.html

 

[Kelly]

To be fair people on the left have questioned whether or not he is really a Christian or if he just says so for political reasons.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/24/bill_maher_obama_is_a_drop_dead_atheist.html

Well hell, they all do that...Obama certainly is not the first, and will not be the last.

 

[SV Fan]

How they think about these specific issues is not going to change a vote of a swing voter...

I do think these type of questions give us incite to the person. If they are having trouble being dodgy on easy questions what does that say about when they have to answer tougher ones(ie how do we not know he is trying to be dodgy then).

It's much easier to hide the truth how you feel on a tougher question by using a bunch of word salad then it is on an easier one that only requires a one word answer

Why is he being asked?
Why does it matter?

Had I been asked the question, I would have answered...I believe Obama has said that he is a Christian, so I can only take him at his word. NOW...can we get to the questions that the voters actually care about?

He is being asked because he has already shown us 2 times that he can't answer simple questions, so with more then a year and half remaining to 2016 some reporters having fun with him.

If it was me being asked I would have called them out on what a stupid question it was, but Walker doesn't even have the balls to do that(because I am guessing somewhere in his head he is saying if he comes off overly aggressive that might offend some people)

 

[summerteeth]

I do think these type of questions give us incite to the person. If they are having trouble being dodgy on easy questions what does that say about when they have to answer tougher ones(ie how do we not know he is trying to be dodgy then).

It's much easier to hide the truth how you feel on a tougher question by using a bunch of word salad then it is on an easier one that only requires a one word answer



He is being asked because he has already shown us 2 times that he can't answer simple questions, so with more then a year and half remaining to 2016 some reporters having fun with him.

If it was me being asked I would have called them out on what a stupid question it was, but Walker doesn't even have the balls to do that(because I am guessing somewhere in his head he is saying if he comes off overly aggressive that might offend some people)

I just don't think that's his personality. He seems rather measured and not reactionary like Christie for example. He did say afterwards that he doesn't want to answer questions like this because he doesn't believe they serve a purpose and that the American people really don't care about the "gotcha" questions.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I think all his answers have been calculated ones. He doesn't answer evolution because he knows that will upset the Tea Party / Evangelicals, and the Obama religion question was clearly throwing them a bone. And then he covered his ass by pretending people don't care about that. People do care. Everyone knows that. Otherwise politicians would stop joining churches right before they start campaigning (or leaving them, if they're no popular).

 

[summerteeth]

I think all his answers have been calculated ones. He doesn't answer evolution because he knows that will upset the Tea Party / Evangelicals, and the Obama religion question was clearly throwing them a bone. And then he covered his ass by pretending people don't care about that. People do care. Everyone knows that. Otherwise politicians would stop joining churches right before they start campaigning (or leaving them, if they're no popular).

People may care if Obama is a Christian, but do they care if Scott Walker thinks Obama is a Christian?

I don't know what's wrong with being calculating
I think Obama is the same way for the most part and is one of the reasons why I voted for him in 08. Obama gets into trouble when he's not such as his holding onto their guns and Bible comment or You didn't build that. The fact is Walker has Hansled things quite well early on and it's making him look like a very formidable candidate.

 

[Kelly]

I do think these type of questions give us incite to the person. If they are having trouble being dodgy on easy questions what does that say about when they have to answer tougher ones(ie how do we not know he is trying to be dodgy then).

It's much easier to hide the truth how you feel on a tougher question by using a bunch of word salad then it is on an easier one that only requires a one word answer



He is being asked because he has already shown us 2 times that he can't answer simple questions, so with more then a year and half remaining to 2016 some reporters having fun with him.

If it was me being asked I would have called them out on what a stupid question it was, but Walker doesn't even have the balls to do that(because I am guessing somewhere in his head he is saying if he comes off overly aggressive that might offend some people)

That is such BS....he is being asked because the media knows it is a gotcha question, and it makes the "person they think is the frontrunner at the moment on the Republican side" look bad. Plain, simple....done. And I can actually understand the liberal media wanting to do that, if it is just for fun....that is even worse, that is childish, and ridiculously stupid...at least with what I said, I can understand why they are doing it.

 

[Kelly]

I just don't think that's his personality. He seems rather measured and not reactionary like Christie for example. He did say afterwards that he doesn't want to answer questions like this because he doesn't believe they serve a purpose and that the American people really don't care about the "gotcha" questions.

Which is exactly what those questions are..."gotcha" questions. However, I do think that he needs to figure out a better way of letting the reporters know that the question is stupid, and a waste of his time. Because it won't be the last time he gets these kind of dumb ass questions....they will come again.

 

[SV Fan]

That is such BS....he is being asked because the media knows it is a gotcha question, and it makes the "person they think is the frontrunner at the moment on the Republican side" look bad. Plain, simple....done. And I can actually understand the liberal media wanting to do that, if it is just for fun....that is even worse, that is childish, and ridiculously stupid...at least with what I said, I can understand why they are doing it.

I don't really consider a question with simple answers to be a "gotcha" question, it's not like they asking him who is the leader of of some 3rd world country in Africa that nobody even knows exists.

It's a basic case he could easily answer these simple questions and he chooses not to(even if he choose to use the method I pointed out above that I would use), and the more he doesn't answer simple questions the more he opens himself up to be asked more of them and then the dumber he looks.

 

[Tech]

All politicians lie.

Their job isn't to be honest about their inner most feelings. It's to play a role that their base expects them to play.

That's why they rarely say things opposite of what their base expects them to say.

Bush and Clinton also said things they were expected to say. They did things they were expected to do.

If you think all of those thing were an honest expression of their personal feelings then I have a bridge to sell you.

Hmm, this would make a great DNC 2016 bumpersticker.

I understand they all mislead at some point or another, but I'm just saying I'd rather a politician refrain from answering a question than deliberately lying.

I'm not really fond of how Scott Walker is handling this issue, however. I wish there was someone in the GOP who had the appeal and wit of Reagan, regardless of what you think of him. Gov Perry, Walker, and Sen Cruz aren't cutting it for me.

I'd say Ron Paul, although a human just like other politicians, has been pretty consistent over the years. He seems pretty genuine compared to other politicians.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Jeb Bush made his first foreign policy speech today and claimed to be "My own man".

Here is a Venn diagram of all the people he chose to bring with him into foreign policy should he win:

A very misleading graph. Not surprising considering the source. Many of the people that Jeb is hiring are people from Dubya's second term where Bush shifted his foreign policy from being a wreckless cowboy to one that is less antagonistic and more cooperative.

The foreign policy moves of Jeb show that even though he is criticizing Obama's foreign policy, expect more of a continuation of what we're seeing now as opposed to Obama's predecessor. Think more H.W. Bush over Dubya.

 

[SV Fan]

Looks like the cons are having one of their monthly clown car conventions again this weekend, should be good for a few laughs

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The foreign policy moves of Jeb show that even though he is criticizing Obama's foreign policy, expect more of a continuation of what we're seeing now as opposed to Obama's predecessor. Think more H.W. Bush over Dubya.

What's the major difference between Bush Sr and Dubya's Middle Eastern foreign policy?

 

[SV Fan]

What's the major difference between Bush Sr and Dubya's Middle Eastern foreign policy?

In the case of Bush Sr they at least had a case that Iraq was attacking somebody and didn't come up with an excuse that was false. Now should the US fight Kuwait's war is another debate, but at least they didn't pull excuses out of thin air

 

[summerteeth]

What's the major difference between Bush Sr and Dubya's Middle Eastern foreign policy?

Nation building for one. Herbert Walker could have taken Sadam out then but felt it was better to leave him in place.

I think the Iraq War is a lot more complex than people try to make it out to be. But that's the case with a lot of things people struggle with nuance.

 

[hippie_hunter]

What's the major difference between Bush Sr and Dubya's Middle Eastern foreign policy?

The differences are quite vast. With H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, it was done to liberate Kuwait from invading Iraqi forces. H.W. Bush built a coalition of all major US allies and major Arab powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia along with UN support. And once the goals were accomplished, H.W. Bush held back and declared a cease fire because he had no desire to start nation building and overthrowing Saddam's Baathist regime. He was much more cautious and more willing to engage in consensus with our allies in the post-Cold War world and positioned the United States to a much more liberal foreign policy in a way that would have made Woodrow Wilson proud.

Dubya' foreign policy on the other hand was a nonsensical combination of liberalism and realism. While H.W. Bush had no desire for nation building, Dubya wanted to transform the Middle East into Western style democracies without properly taking into account the history and culture of that region. While H.W. Bush built a grand coalition of all major US allies and major Arab powers, Dubya's coalition only consisted of the major allies of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and South Korea, no Arab nations, and Eastern European nations to make up for the loss of major allies like France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand and no support from the United Nations.

Another core component of Bush's Middle East policy was the War on Terrorism. H.W. Bush didn't have to deal with the rise of Islamic extremism the way Dubya and Obama have. H.W. Bush's war tactics were far more traditional in a sense in which there was a more defined enemy, the nation-state of Iraq. Dubya on the other hand has had to deal with fighting non-traditional enemies, terrorist groups and insurgencies, which require vastly different tactics.

But there are a lot of other differences as well. H.W. Bush did not develop a foreign policy of whether you're with us or your against us. He didn't work to alienate key allies like France and Germany. He invaded Panama, but he didn't overstay his welcome there with the general populace like Dubya did in Iraq. H.W. Bush primarily used the US military for humanitarian purposes in places like Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Somalia and protection of American citizens like Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Zaire. Dubya on the other hand stretched the US military rather thin with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Dubya worked to expand the US' military arsenal with the rejection of the AMB Treaty (under the excuse of the Soviet Union no longer existing), H.W. Bush worked to reduce America's nuclear arsenal with START I. H.W. Bush paved the way for Bill Clinton to create NAFTA. The list goes on and on.

 

[Kelly]

The differences are quite vast. With H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War, it was done to liberate Kuwait from invading Iraqi forces. H.W. Bush built a coalition of all major US allies and major Arab powers like Egypt and Saudi Arabia along with UN support. And once the goals were accomplished, H.W. Bush held back and declared a cease fire because he had no desire to start nation building and overthrowing Saddam's Baathist regime. He was much more cautious and more willing to engage in consensus with our allies in the post-Cold War world and positioned the United States to a much more liberal foreign policy in a way that would have made Woodrow Wilson proud.

Dubya' foreign policy on the other hand was a nonsensical combination of liberalism and realism. While H.W. Bush had no desire for nation building, Dubya wanted to transform the Middle East into Western style democracies without properly taking into account the history and culture of that region. While H.W. Bush built a grand coalition of all major US allies and major Arab powers, Dubya's coalition only consisted of the major allies of the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and South Korea, no Arab nations, and Eastern European nations to make up for the loss of major allies like France, Germany, Canada, and New Zealand and no support from the United Nations.

Another core component of Bush's Middle East policy was the War on Terrorism. H.W. Bush didn't have to deal with the rise of Islamic extremism the way Dubya and Obama have. H.W. Bush's war tactics were far more traditional in a sense in which there was a more defined enemy, the nation-state of Iraq. Dubya on the other hand has had to deal with fighting non-traditional enemies, terrorist groups and insurgencies, which require vastly different tactics.

But there are a lot of other differences as well. H.W. Bush did not develop a foreign policy of whether you're with us or your against us. He didn't work to alienate key allies like France and Germany. He invaded Panama, but he didn't overstay his welcome there with the general populace like Dubya did in Iraq. H.W. Bush primarily used the US military for humanitarian purposes in places like Bosnia & Herzegovina, Iraqi Kurdistan, and Somalia and protection of American citizens like Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Zaire. Dubya on the other hand stretched the US military rather thin with two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Dubya worked to expand the US' military arsenal with the rejection of the AMB Treaty (under the excuse of the Soviet Union no longer existing), H.W. Bush worked to reduce America's nuclear arsenal with START I. H.W. Bush paved the way for Bill Clinton to create NAFTA. The list goes on and on.

Explained very well....

My Foreign Policy professor would be proud of you...

BTW, my LIBERAL Foreign Policy Professor thought that H.W. Bush knew what he was doing and used his playbook as the basis of his class.

 

[SV Fan]

So according to Walker dealing with union people gets him ready to take on terrorists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...with-protesting-teachers-and-other-unionists/

Yes, Scott Walker really did link terrorists with protesting teachers and other unionists

His spokesman tried to walk it back, and he denied making the comparison, but Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, in an attempt to show just what a tough guy he is, really did say that his strength in taking on protesting union members qualified him for confronting radical Islamic terrorist groups, such as the Islamic State.

Walker, believed to be considering running for president in 2016, was speaking Thursday on the opening day of the Conservative Political Action Conference in Oxon Hill, Md., where more than a dozen potential GOP candidates are appearing. According to the Associated Press, Walker devoted most of his talk to the issue of international terrorism. This is how Walker responded to a question about how he would handle the Islamic State if he was to become president:

“I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil. We will have someone who leads and ultimately will send a message not only that we will protect American soil but do not, do not, take this upon freedom-loving people anywhere else in the world. We need a leader with that kind of confidence. If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world.”
​

With a statement like that maybe I understand more why he does his best to avoid answering questions

Got to love Cpac though always brings out the worst in the Republican party

 

[hippie_hunter]

Explained very well....

My Foreign Policy professor would be proud of you...

I majored in International Studies. Talking about foreign policy is something I kinda thrive in.

BTW, my LIBERAL Foreign Policy Professor thought that H.W. Bush knew what he was doing and used his playbook as the basis of his class.

H.W. Bush was a foreign policy juggernaut. The man was head of the C.I.A., UN Ambassador, the de-facto ambassador to the PRC, and served on the Council on Foreign Relations. I think it's obvious to see that he knew what he was doing. His administration was very focused on foreign policy, maybe a little too much, it's one of the three reasons why I think he ended up losing to Clinton in 1992.

I think H.W. Bush really wanted to create a new world order for the post-Cold War era that would have made Woodrow Wilson very, very happy. A pragmatic combination of realist and liberal viewpoints in foreign policy. Unfortunately all three of his predecessors had to muck it up.

 

[The Overlord]

I guess the big question is, will the GOP engage in actual self critical reflection before the next election or will they do what they always do, assume all their problems are the fault of Democrats, liberals and Republicans who are not ideological pure enough and assume that because they won the mid term election in 2014, that they don't have ask themselves any real questions.

When the GOP lost the Presidential election in 2008, it looked like they might do some soul searching, however when they won the mid term in 2010, they assumed they did not have to do anymore soul searching, that they an absolute man date to do whatever they felt like and then they lost in 2012. Will this win in 2014 give them the same sort of hubris? Will they ever truly engage in real self reflection?

 

[enterthemadness]

So according to Walker dealing with union people gets him ready to take on terrorists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...with-protesting-teachers-and-other-unionists/

With a statement like that maybe I understand more why he does his best to avoid answering questions

Got to love Cpac though always brings out the worst in the Republican party

Republican? No, he is Libertarian..even though he is at CPAC.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/02/26/gary-johnson-pretends-heart-attack.cnn

Gary Johnson faked a heart attack at CPAC cause, well, anti-weed lady says 1 in 5 people who smoke pot suffer heart attack or are at higher risk for one.

Oh, and he said on ABC News Politics or Wall Street Journal recently he is going after LP Nomination and going that route again.

 

[The Overlord]

Republican? No, he is Libertarian..even though he is at CPAC.


http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/02/26/gary-johnson-pretends-heart-attack.cnn

Gary Johnson faked a heart attack at CPAC cause, well, anti-weed lady says 1 in 5 people who smoke pot suffer heart attack or are at higher risk for one.

Oh, and he said on ABC News Politics or Wall Street Journal recently he is going after LP Nomination and going that route again.

If Walker is a Libertarian why is he against gay marriage and support other social conservative issues?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ositions-in-letter-b99375704z1-279975922.html

He also wants to get more involved in the Middle East.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...nt-rule-out-u-s-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria/


Walker is a typical republican, big government is bad, until it serves his interests, then its okay. He is no libertarian.

 

[enterthemadness]

If Walker is a Libertarian why is he against gay marriage and support other social conservative issues?

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statep...ositions-in-letter-b99375704z1-279975922.html

He also wants to get more involved in the Middle East.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...nt-rule-out-u-s-boots-on-the-ground-in-syria/


Walker is a typical republican, big government is bad, until it serves his interests, then its okay. He is no libertarian.

No, no, I badly typed that. Was talking about Johnson, not Walker.