Now that there is a large slate of GOP contenders that have announced their hope and desire to be President, we have to hear from them to know how they stand different from each other to find the best ONE.

It seems all are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and in favor of reducing the size of federal government, sealing the Mexican border, and ensuring a safe America.

What are some other issues and how does each feel about it so we can make the best choice?

Originally Posted by Guest

Now that there is a large slate of GOP contenders that have announced their hope and desire to be President, we have to hear from them to know how they stand different from each other to find the best ONE.

It seems all are pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and in favor of reducing the size of federal government, sealing the Mexican border, and ensuring a safe America.

What are some other issues and how does each feel about it so we can make the best choice?

HOW to solve those issues and within the debate, allowing discussion of those methods.

Never hard to tell folks what you think is wrong....let us listen to how to fix it.

They will all take similar positions designed to pander to the far right voters who generally swing the primaries. Then whomever comes out of this pander party with the nomination will backtrack and soften all those positions somewhat in an effort to attract less right leaning general election voters. The ideologues who would not back off their primary stances won't be nominated. In the end the best financed candidate will probably get the nomination and lose the general election. Enjoy the show.

You are probably right about the general election. The tide has turned as the uninformed who want free stuff outnumber the informed who provide the free stuff at the polls during the presidential elections. The reverse seems to be true during the mid-terms.

Originally Posted by Guest

They will all take similar positions designed to pander to the far right voters who generally swing the primaries. Then whomever comes out of this pander party with the nomination will backtrack and soften all those positions somewhat in an effort to attract less right leaning general election voters. The ideologues who would not back off their primary stances won't be nominated. In the end the best financed candidate will probably get the nomination and lose the general election. Enjoy the show.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are probably right about the general election. The tide has turned as the uninformed who want free stuff outnumber the informed who provide the free stuff at the polls during the presidential elections. The reverse seems to be true during the mid-terms.

You sound reasonable until you mention "The uninformed who want free stuff vs the informed who provide free stuff". I am a left leaning centrist who is informed and has paid a large amount of taxes that provide free stuff for more rich than poor, and police and fire protection, and infrastructure that benefit all. Many people who vote for democrats are successful, well informed, and moral people, and many are not. Many people who vote for republicans are poorly informed, takers, who lack morals, and many are not. Underestimating the opposition is a mistake. Making an effort to understand the legitimacy of the opposition positions makes you better able to counter those positions.

This is the most positive dialogue I have witnessed since this new forum has been open.

Differences of opinion expressed, acknowledged, counterpoint offered, all with respect for each other's positions.

This is the way it should be.

Originally Posted by Guest

This is the most positive dialogue I have witnessed since this new forum has been open.

Differences of opinion expressed, acknowledged, counterpoint offered, all with respect for each other's positions.

This is the way it should be.

Must be the usual antagonist(s) are away....all at the same time? Could it be just one playing multiple roles....

It has become quite clear that the majority of people prefer an expansion of the role of Government. This is, by definition, "free stuff" because the Government practices wealth redistribution. How do I know this? Because they voted a party into power that ran on a platform of expanding government. You see this philosophy on a regular basis with proposals for free college for 2 years, free child care, etc. Why wouldn't people vote that way? You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing but it is true. You can try to slip the police and fire fighters into the argument but we both know that is not relevant. A large number of people derive substantial benefits with very little skin in the game. They are a big component of the democratic voters. What is amazing is that they are not mobilized for the mid-terms. This suggests that they are not well informed as the mid-term elections often have huge impacts on local and state governments. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by Guest

You sound reasonable until you mention "The uninformed who want free stuff vs the informed who provide free stuff". I am a left leaning centrist who is informed and has paid a large amount of taxes that provide free stuff for more rich than poor, and police and fire protection, and infrastructure that benefit all. Many people who vote for democrats are successful, well informed, and moral people, and many are not. Many people who vote for republicans are poorly informed, takers, who lack morals, and many are not. Underestimating the opposition is a mistake. Making an effort to understand the legitimacy of the opposition positions makes you better able to counter those positions.

I see that Rick Santorium is going to join the field of GOP contenders in a couple of weeks. He, also, shares the beliefs of the others. How soon are we going to hear from them how they differ from each other?

In their talking points, all sound alike. Repeal Obamacare, reduce size of government, secure borders, no citizenship for illegals, etc.

Come on guys - and lady - make some statements to give us a clear choice of purpose instead of only NOT to vote for the Democrat.

A very big negative in my opinion is too many candidates with fairly common goals can only differentiate themselves by going after the democratic candidate/party and each other.

It is the political discredit the other guy mode that is destructive. Not enough, you should vote for me because..........and coming across as more capable, more qualified, more energetic, more likely candidate of choice.

Unfortunately, current politics is all about sticks and stones and digging dirt and slinging mud, etc.

Originally Posted by Guest

It has become quite clear that the majority of people prefer an expansion of the role of Government. This is, by definition, "free stuff" because the Government practices wealth redistribution. How do I know this? Because they voted a party into power that ran on a platform of expanding government. You see this philosophy on a regular basis with proposals for free college for 2 years, free child care, etc. Why wouldn't people vote that way? You can argue whether this is a good or bad thing but it is true. You can try to slip the police and fire fighters into the argument but we both know that is not relevant. A large number of people derive substantial benefits with very little skin in the game. They are a big component of the democratic voters. What is amazing is that they are not mobilized for the mid-terms. This suggests that they are not well informed as the mid-term elections often have huge impacts on local and state governments. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by Guest

I see that Rick Santorium is going to join the field of GOP contenders in a couple of weeks. He, also, shares the beliefs of the others. How soon are we going to hear from them how they differ from each other?

In their talking points, all sound alike. Repeal Obamacare, reduce size of government, secure borders, no citizenship for illegals, etc.

Come on guys - and lady - make some statements to give us a clear choice of purpose instead of only NOT to vote for the Democrat.

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

Originally Posted by Guest

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

And the losers will get what they're really after, a gig on the Fox channel.

I don't see how you can say that: Democrats, in my opinion, toe their own party line as well or better than Republicans. At the very least, the point has no definitive answer.

Originally Posted by Guest

Republicans are, and always have been, superior to Democrats in one way - staying on message and toeing the party line. There is NO ROOM for much in the way of dissent or independent expression with the candidates as they pander to the majority of primary voters. Therefore there will only be minor differences in their stance on important issues while they cut each other down in attack ads and "debates". Primary voters will decide on the basis of which of this flawed lot is most likely to beat the Democrats.

At least they want to go work for a channel that has ratings. Loser Democrats can only go MSNBC, which nobody watches. Check the cable news ratings - it is a real eye opener as to how low the MSNBC ratings are.

Originally Posted by Guest

And the losers will get what they're really after, a gig on the Fox channel.