Republican Iowa Caucus 2012

[jpchewy01]

I thought your nation was based on self-effacing humor and a stiff upper lip.

Also, monarchical absolutism is the province of those perfidious French frogs.

Sovereign: I have to joke because the alternative is way too depressing. You're lucky living in Canada. This is all just academic to you. Unless of course your country throws opens its borders for us disaffected Americans. Then I wouldn't crack wise ever again.

I'm part French.:CIsee

 

[BLADE]

In fairness to Sovereign, I am long-winded. And humor is subjective. So what flies for you may not fly for me and vice versa. Of course, that would derail the thread, so to get back slightly on topic...

I take back what I said. Romney may win. By fourteen points. Fun fact: he spent over 100K on every single vote, whereas Mr. Santorum (at last count) spent 2K.

Frenchness:Well, I don't hold it against you. Much.

 

[Cailst]

Not being a corporate self-caricature who in all likelihood polls his family on what type of Christmas sweater he should wear this year?

I'm a Social Democrat and find pretty much every tenet of modern conservatism loathsome and/or idiotic, but if I were a conservative, I'd vote for the guy who actually believes what he's peddling rather than the guy who will basically believe whatever you tell him to believe.

Then again, if you're the ruthlessly pragmatic type, maybe Romney's unique malleability is exactly what you're looking for in a candidate. A tabula rasa for every single inane whim you might have. Who knows?

What are your thoughts, since you asked?

Given that even McCain altered some of his rhetoric when he became the main candidate, I'd expect just about every candidate to change except for Ron Paul. He seems ornery enough that he wouldn't want to change, even if it might help.

And then, they'd probably change some more when they actually have to deal with real events rather than posturing about hypotheticals. Consider the closing of gitmo.

 

[BLADE]

Given that even McCain altered some of his rhetoric when he became the main candidate, I'd expect just about every candidate to change except for Ron Paul. He seems ornery enough that he wouldn't want to change, even if it might help.

And then, they'd probably change some more when they actually have to deal with real events rather than posturing about hypotheticals. Consider the closing of gitmo.

Bit early (or late, I suppose) for strawmen, isn't it?

Having convictions =/= never refusing to compromise a position ever.

On the other hand, look at Romney's public record. He has essentially repudiated every position he's ever held. In some cases he's done this twice and some of his political positions are actually in a quantum indeterminate state. He is Mitt Romney. Alpha and Omega. All things to all people.

And also a sleazy liar.

 

[Cailst]

I thought your nation was based on self-effacing humor and a stiff upper lip.

I suppose it could be based off of one thing but founded for other purposes. So I guess it'd be founded off of uniting the various Anglo-Saxon mini kingdoms and then fighting off Vikings.

Also, monarchical absolutism is the province of those perfidious French frogs.

Till a few heads start rolling.

Bit early (or late, I suppose) for strawmen, isn't it?

Having convictions =/= never refusing to compromise a position ever.

On the other hand, look at Romney's public record. He has essentially repudiated every position he's ever held. In some cases he's done this twice and some of his political positions are actually in a quantum indeterminate state. He is Mitt Romney. Alpha and Omega. All things to all people.

And also a sleazy liar.

Yeah, he's changed his mind a lot. But as a Republican presidential candidate, I can't see him veering too far from the straight and narrow. As president, I suppose his lack of convictions will just mean that we have an extremely flexible president who might not pretend that he has convictions, maybe.

 

[BLADE]

You forgot to mention the detritus of Rome and the Norman infusion.

As for the heads rolling, all of the British absolutists were generally hilariously inept at being absolutist. The most effective British dictator wasn't even a monarch: Oliver Cromwell. At least Louis got to be Sun King and start random stuff with Spain and whatnot.

Edit: Seems I was off by two: Mitt Romney wins (for now, barring provisional retabulation, etc.) by twelve votes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/...te/IA_Page_0103.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Reminds me of Lyndon "Landslide" Johnson.

 

[jpchewy01]

You forgot to mention the detritus of Rome and the Norman infusion.

As for the heads rolling, all of the British absolutists were generally hilariously inept at being absolutist. The most effective British dictator wasn't even a monarch: Oliver Cromwell. At least Louis got to be Sun King and start random stuff with Spain and whatnot.

OMG. You're like the Brandon-JP-Cailst hybrid of doom.:CGape

 

[BLADE]

Er... thanks? Or er... how dare you, take that back?

Anyhow, with results in, it's basically the spin-game now. Expectations for Romney were relatively high going into this and depending on the news cycle, he may be wounded going into New Hampshire.

I still say that structurally he's more likely to win than not (he has lots of money, and the only other candidate who can claim that is Rick Perry who, well insert your own joke here.)

 

[jpchewy01]

Er... thanks? Or er... how dare you, take that back?

Go with the first choice.

 

[Cailst]

You forgot to mention the detritus of Rome and the Norman infusion.

As for the heads rolling, all of the British absolutists were generally hilariously inept at being absolutist. The most effective British dictator wasn't even a monarch: Oliver Cromwell. At least Louis got to be Sun King and start random stuff with Spain and whatnot.

Edit: Seems I was off by two: Mitt Romney wins (for now, barring provisional retabulation, etc.) by twelve votes.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/...te/IA_Page_0103.html?SITE=AP&SECTION=POLITICS

Reminds me of Lyndon "Landslide" Johnson.

While the end of Rome in Britain was necessary, it didn't set up the Kingdom of Wessex. And while the Normans certainly changed England a lot, they also didn't set up the kingdom themselves, merely usurped the throne.

Yeah, Louis was kinda powerful and probably had more control over his country than Britain, but there have been more absolute rulers in history. Such as leaders of Russia and China who more personally controlled the religion of their state without some Pope off in Italy telling citizens of their nations what to do.

 

[BLADE]

Yeah, he's changed his mind a lot. But as a Republican presidential candidate, I can't see him veering too far from the straight and narrow. As president, I suppose his lack of convictions will just mean that we have an extremely flexible president who might not pretend that he has convictions, maybe.

Well of course not. Romney knows which side his bread is buttered on. But doesn't it insult your intelligence and shock your moral conscience that somebody is such a liar? I don't expect politicians to be saints, but reality should actually matter in running for President, at least occasionally.

While the end of Rome in Britain was necessary, it didn't set up the Kingdom of Wessex. And while the Normans certainly changed England a lot, they also didn't set up the kingdom themselves, merely usurped the throne.

Certainly, but the Romans brought several important innovations and formalized the rise of Southern England as the major pole of political power (Northern industrial England's occasional attempts to wrest the spotlight notwithstanding.)

Yeah, Louis was kinda powerful and probably had more control over his country than Britain, but there have been more absolute rulers in history. Such as leaders of Russia and China who more personally controlled the religion of their state without some Pope off in Italy telling citizens of their nations what to do. '

Russia was way more feudal than most people realize. Even Ivan and Peter had to occasionally kowtow before the boyars. As for the Chinese? Arguable. They usually operate on a seesaw pattern from "warring states" to "big centralized dynasty" (Han, Tang, etc.)

I would say Louis is the codifier for doing it in style and all the awful things that derive from absolutism (as well as some of the good.) Of course, my favorite pseudo-absolutist centralizer wasn't even a king at all, he was a cardinal (Richelieu), so take that with a grain of salt.

Arguably the most powerful ruler of all time (in terms of control) was Stalin. Or the illustrious Jongs of North Korea. But absolutism is simply one of those terms in political science that is more of a convenient shortcut than anything else.

 

[Shiuzu]

The Republican candidates are a joke. They don't want to put up anyone who would actually have a shot, because how many presidents have only had one term that weren't impeached or killed? I mean hell Bush Jr. was in there for two terms. They're going to wait for the election after this one to try and get in. If Obama doesn't get reelected then I'll eat my own sock and upload it and show you all. I also have a conspiracy theory on why they threw the election with McCain but that's for another time.

Edit: Eh.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

The one possible upside to Romney having no convictions is that it could make him a pragmatic President.

But that's a ****ing big "could."

 

[Cailst]

The Republican candidates are a joke. They don't want to put up anyone who would actually have a shot, because how many presidents have only had one term that weren't impeached or killed? I mean hell Bush Jr. was in there for two terms. They're going to wait for the election after this one to try and get in. If Obama doesn't get reelected then I'll eat my own sock and upload it and show you all. I also have a conspiracy theory on why they threw the election with McCain but that's for another time.

Edit: Eh.

We've had a decent amount of one term presidents.

Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford in recent years.

What would non-joke Republican candidates look like?

 

[jpchewy01]

Brandon Rhea 2024.

 

[Shiuzu]

We've had a decent amount of one term presidents.

Bush Sr., Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford in recent years.

What would non-joke Republican candidates look like?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

What would non-joke Republican candidates look like?

 

[Wing]

Obama

 

[Sovereign]

Still had an awful foreign policy.

 

[Brandon Rhea]

Still had an awful foreign policy.

I like Ike.