GOP Candidates More Like Obama Than Not

[mrjarrell]

It's been pointed out by many of us that there's little difference between most of the gop candidates and Obama and his progressive crowd. Now even the NYT has noticed it and pointed it out. The cult of the Imperial Presidency is alive and well with the republican candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/us/politics/gop-field-has-broad-views-on-executive-power.html

 

[J_Wales]

Agreed.

Though progressives and statist pigs are rampant in the democrat party, they are far from having a monopoly on the breed.

Cast your vote wisely.

 

[spec4]

Typical liberal crap from a very liberal paper. On another thread we beat to death the killing of an American citizen (Ali whatever), so I'll leave it at that. OP, can you name a GOP POTUS in the last 100 years who has been as bad as Obama has been for our country?

 

[KG1]

It's been pointed out by many of us that there's little difference between most of the gop candidates and Obama and his progressive crowd. Now even the NYT has noticed it and pointed it out. The cult of the Imperial Presidency is alive and well with the republican candidates.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/us/politics/gop-field-has-broad-views-on-executive-power.html

After reading this article it seems to be addressing military and foreign policy and the role the Executive branch plays more than anything else.

I think this combined with a socialist leaning agenda Obama has demonstrated that he has the capability to be even worse than most of the GOP candidates.

I would submit that after criticizing the Bush agenda before he got elected he's atleast matched it and even taken it a little further with carrying out drone assassinations of American citizens abroad and trying to exert even more executive power such as the case with Libya.

Then there is the whole deal with the NDAA bill and his administrations insistence that any language protecting U.S. citizens be left out of the bill.

It seems to me that alot of people are now clamoring for the recall or ouster of any congress person that supported this bill. Why should'nt that same sentiment also not be extended to Obama?

If all this is the case then why not try and elect someone else to get him out of office?

Why should Obama and the Democrat Party deserve a free pass on all of this just because certain people want to punish Republicans?

 

[CulpeperMM]

Even on domestic policies Romney and Gingrich are very similar to Obama. They both are supporters of the OabamaCare legislation and support the individual mandates. Tehy both are for stricter gun control laws nationally. Both would go along with the EPA and the continuation of Greening America to death. These two would continue the clandestine nationalization of financial markets. They are very very similar to Obama on most issues.

That is why its Ron Paul or nothing for the GOP.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

After reading this article it seems to be addressing military and foreign policy and the role the Executive branch plays more than anything else.

I think this combined with a socialist leaning agenda Obama has demonstrated that he has the capability to be even worse than most of the GOP candidates.

I dont think so ... not that im saying your wrong per say, but the only difference is Obama is there now. When the next candidate takes power, do you REALLY see him going back on anything Obama has done? Do you even see the next president taking America in a different direction?


Then there is the whole deal with the NDAA bill and his administrations insistence that any language protecting U.S. citizens be left out of the bill.

It passed by quite a big margin, have you looked to see who all signed yes to this?
Ayes: 322 (Democrat: 95; Republican: 227)
Nays: 96 (Democrat: 90; Republican: 6)

This cannot be blamed on Obama ... And only furthers the line of thought that they are 2 parties with the same agenda

It seems to me that alot of people are now clamoring for the recall or ouster of any congress person that supported this bill. Why should'nt that same sentiment also not be extended to Obama?

It should, even more so because Obama said he wouldnt sign this if it reached him .... until it passed of course

Needless to say, voting R or D will have minimal effect and will only prolong the inevitable.

 

[rambone]

Who will be next to serve the New World Order agenda?

 

[rambone]

"Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism."

-- G. Edward Griffin, Left Vs Right: The Illusion of Opposites​

 

[indykid]

Pretty sad when even the New York Times sees the problems we see, yet the national republican party does nothing to get a proper candidate lined up.

 

[jedi]

Typical liberal crap from a very liberal paper. On another thread we beat to death the killing of an American citizen (Ali whatever), so I'll leave it at that. OP, can you name a GOP POTUS in the last 100 years who has been as bad as Obama has been for our country?

We dont' have to go that far back you now. Look at Bush 2 and his "prescription drug plan". What more look at what CulpeperMM writes...

Even on domestic policies Romney and Gingrich are very similar to Obama. They both are supporters of the OabamaCare legislation and support the individual mandates. Tehy both are for stricter gun control laws nationally. Both would go along with the EPA and the continuation of Greening America to death. These two would continue the clandestine nationalization of financial markets. They are very very similar to Obama on most issues.

That is why its Ron Paul or nothing for the GOP.

Pretty sad when even the New York Times sees the problems we see, yet the national republican party does nothing to get a proper candidate lined up.

Not sad at all. The Rs have no reason to put a "real" candidate up. They like the status quo just like the Ds. They is no money (to be made) in putting a "real" candidate in office.

If Paul does not get the nomination then I vote Obama and hopefully we get to see the train wreck in my lifetime then in my childrens.

-Jedi

 

[dross]

Of course they are alike. How could they not be? The vast majority of Americans are operate somewhere near the middle of the spectrum. Politicians reflect the people they represent. If a politician running for national office steps too far away from the middle on either side, they can't win.

To be very different you have to hope for one of two things:

1. The people have changed when no one was looking and the middle has shifted to the point where the mainstream candidates aren't mainstream anymore. This happens from time to time.
2. You plan to change people's minds.

These are both tough and low percentage strategies.

The Democrat and Republican parties are so similar because they reflect the American people.

 

[Garb]

The Democrat and Republican parties are so similar because they reflect the American people's lack of objectivity.

FTFY. Most people I've talked to think the two parties are quite different. This is because they watch and believe what they hear on the news. If people would watch how they vote instead of what they say I'm sure a vast majority of voters would stop voting for the kind of candidates they used to. Good examples are Tea Party members who are voting for or supporting people like Michelle Bachmann or Mike Pence, even though they've supported government intervention in the economic sector in the past, and liberals who have voted for candidates like Obama and Clinton who've decidedly been just as pro-war as the Republicans. The parties aren't truly representing their voting base... they just say they are. The Occupy Wall Street movement is right about one thing at least (although their reasoning is seriously messed up). Neither the Democrats or the Republicans represent the views of the American people. I blame this on the people who blindly vote for a candidate because they're not the other guy, or because they actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouth without doing any research themselves. Quite honestly, a con man can only deceive the willing, and most people in America have been all too willing.

 

[dross]

FTFY. Most people I've talked to think the two parties are quite different. This is because they watch and believe what they hear on the news. If people would watch how they vote instead of what they say I'm sure a vast majority of voters would stop voting for the kind of candidates they used to. Good examples are Tea Party members who are voting for or supporting people like Michelle Bachmann or Mike Pence, even though they've supported government intervention in the economic sector in the past, and liberals who have voted for candidates like Obama and Clinton who've decidedly been just as pro-war as the Republicans. The parties aren't truly representing their voting base... they just say they are. The Occupy Wall Street movement is right about one thing at least (although their reasoning is seriously messed up). Neither the Democrats or the Republicans represent the views of the American people. I blame this on the people who blindly vote for a candidate because they're not the other guy, or because they actually believe the crap that comes out of their mouth without doing any research themselves. Quite honestly, a con man can only deceive the willing, and most people in America have been all too willing.

People have NEVER been informed voters. If your strategy is that people have to understand better, YOU LOSE. People believe the media? I grew up in a time when there was NO OTHER VOICE than from the left. Now we have FOX with a different view, whether you like it or not, and the internet. Yet most people are very ill informed. Even informed people are poorly informed. Lots of people who post here - and these are way more educated about politics and issues than the average person - have huge ignorance gaps about history and economics and politics in general.

It doesn't matter WHY the American people are how they are, their politicians will always reflect them. You think they are one way but the media leads them another way. They are led so easily because they don't bother to think about it. They are busy with other things. The people who decide our elections don't know who they will vote for until days before an election. They can't pass the simplest tests on politics and our system. Yet these swing voters decide every election.

You guys need to look at the world the way it is, not the way you want it to be. Sure, work to change it. But understand your labors are not likely to show results you'll ever see.

One more thing: There is no "American people" the way you use the term. There's only a bunch of folks with differing interests. Some of those interests are common enough that people band together in loose blocks. The "American people" are too diverse to say why they vote how they vote. The way you can tell is to see what they DO. And they pull the lever over and over for Rs and Ds. They've had alternative candidates in every election since our founding. Are you telling me that the libertarians and the socialist party and the communist party can't get their message out? How come I can tell you what each of them are for? They don't get elected because the people who care enough to find out don't like what they stand for. And the people who don't care you can't reach anyway, because they don't even watch the evening news. They do something else.

 

[lon]

"Would you rather be a Neoconservative or a Progressive? That is a trick question. The trick is in the fact that, although there may be differences between the rhetoric and short-term agendas of these groups, their long-term goals actually are the same. They may differ over how to fight a war in the Middle East but not over the right of the President to wage such a war empowered by the UN instead of Congress. They may differ over what kind of speech should be forbidden ("subversive" speech vs. "hate" speech, for example) but not over the right of the government to forbid it. They may differ over how fast to bankrupt the nation to provide benefits for its citizens but not over the assumption that providing benefits is what governments are supposed to do. They disagree over tactics, timing, and style, but not objectives. They fight for dominance within the New World Order, but they work together to build it. That is because both groups have embraced the underlying ideology of global collectivism."

-- G. Edward Griffin, Left Vs Right: The Illusion of Opposites​

Very True quote. I think people who don't realize the Left/Right game are the most dangerous breed of sheep.

Seems like there are a whole lot of them are on this board, blowing long and hard about the sheep who are gun ignorant, but think They are somehow enlightened.

 

[dross]

Very True quote. I think people who don't realize the Left/Right game are the most dangerous breed of sheep.

Seems like there are a whole lot of them are on this board, blowing long and hard about the sheep who are gun ignorant, but think They are somehow enlightened.

It doesn't matter if you call it left, right, up or down, green or red. People will form into two loose coalitions because that's how it works. It can only work that way.

 

[mrjarrell]

It doesn't matter if you call it left, right, up or down, green or red. People will form into two loose coalitions because that's how it works. It can only work that way.

Not true, as other political systems around the globe prove. They can and do split into MANY like minded factions across the political spectrum. 2 is not the only number in existence. Left/right is a false picture of reality.

 

[dross]

Not true, as other political systems around the globe prove. They can and do split into MANY like minded factions across the political spectrum. 2 is not the only number in existence. Left/right is a false picture of reality.

Incorrect. Multi party systems just form coalitions after the election. We do it before the election. Every issue ends up having two sides, because issues eventually take the form of laws. You end up either for or against the law being considered. Two sides. One side loses, one side wins. Even the side that wins doesn't win everything.

It works exactly the same, just with different trappings.

 

[KLB]

Incorrect. Multi party systems just form coalitions after the election. We do it before the election. Every issue ends up having two sides, because issues eventually take the form of laws. You end up either for or against the law being considered. Two sides. One side loses, one side wins. Even the side that wins doesn't win everything.

It works exactly the same, just with different trappings.

The difference is there can be more variation in those coalitions by issue than we get here.

Too many of our representatives and senators vote with the party on almost everything, thus our system gives only those two coalitions on almost every issue.

In those other systems alliances can shift issue to issue, giving more variation.

 

[dross]

The difference is there can be more variation in those coalitions by issue than we get here.

Too many of our representatives and senators vote with the party on almost everything, thus our system gives only those two coalitions on almost every issue.

In those other systems alliances can shift issue to issue, giving more variation.

Well, if the argument has boiled down to the superiority of a mult-party system as exists in many other parts of the world, that's an interesting discussion. I'd be scared of rewriting the Constitution at the moment, however, I think most of our rights would disappear with a poof.

Multi-party systems have advantages and downsides, just like anything else. They are not the solution to all our problems. Unless you guys have noticed lots of extra freedom and fiscal responsibility in all those places that have them.

If you pay attention, people cross party boundaries all the time in our system.

I see no evidence that multiple parties would change much of anything. Politicians reflect their voting constituencies, regardless of how you organize it.

 

[rambone]

Well, if the argument has boiled down to the superiority of a mult-party system as exists in many other parts of the world, that's an interesting discussion. I'd be scared of rewriting the Constitution at the moment, however, I think most of our rights would disappear with a poof.

Non-sequitor.