The case for a President Santorum in 2012

[Marokai]

This place is ridiculous sometimes.

YOU TROLL HOW DARE YOU INSULT PEOPLE LIKE THAT YOU'RE A LOOSE CANNON!

(Joke, by the way.)

Actually, it is trolling.

No, see, It's unfortunate that I have to explain these things but obviously you're just a little slow to the punchline. Lemme explain.

People get upset over arbitrary things here on Atlas. We've had racists, who people took seriously, and actually took their time to debate for pages and pages in thread upon thread.

Meanwhile, when someone (random) says something like "This is stupid." "This is cheerleading." "This is ridiculous." "I can't believe this." They're lambasted, called trolls, dismissed. Obviously something isn't right there. My comment was made because I essentially say the same thing when something is just so patently absurd it doesn't warrant a serious reply (such as the highly highly highly unlikely and fanfiction-esque scenario of President Santorum) but this person wasn't assailed for doing so. I'm baffled (more confused than irritated, honestly) at how Atlas reacts to certain things, so I comment on it like I did there.

As for me being a troll, trolls don't have debates over something, trolls don't have graphs about the per-dollar benefit of various proposed economic stimuli as a sig, and a troll certainly wouldn't be posting a 120 page (so far, in Word) AH Timeline on the What If? board. Ask Straha what qualifies as a troll, I'm certainly not one.

I don't think you're actually a Democrat. I mean...you have no good reason to be. You've never said anything of substance either.

Is that so? Never any substance?

Feb. 5th: I defend the Stimulus bill and go through the items falsely labeled as pork and explain why they're effective proposals.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92298.msg1911940#msg1911940

Feb. 5th: I explain my problems with deregulating health insurance to make it so everyone can buy insurance across state lines.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92337.msg1912282#msg1912282

Jan. 28th: I disagree on several points with Einzige's characterization that Populists are "historically new" to the Democratic Party, and that he's dead wrong on the stripping away of a variety of welfare measures and social services.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=91937.msg1904001#msg1904001

Dec. 13th & 17th: I strongly disagree with the foolish folk who seek to cripple or eliminate the Food Stamp Program, which is a vastly successful welfare measure that people wanted to see "reformed" to exclude "junk food" which would make the program a complete nightmare. I do the same thing four days later.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89711.msg1858386#msg1858386

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89711.msg1854505#msg1854505

Dec. 15th: I argue against McCain's "moderate" myth, deconstructing what someone mentions as reasons why he's a moderate.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89779.msg1856009#msg1856009

Dec. 3rd: I explain in great detail that the UAW is hardly at fault in the crisis of the big three, and defend an auto bailout idea (even toying with the idea of temporary nationalization) and debunk the fictional "70 dollars an hour" BS.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89288.msg1841857#msg1841857

What about just plain substance, ignoring political issues?

Nov. 29th-Present: I posted an enormous time line I'm still working on that's totaled around one hundred and twenty pages in Microsoft Word. Each update takes hours of research and collaboration. Not exactly troll-like.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89039.msg1834585#msg1834585

Dec. 14th: I took my time to craft a political platform I'm still working on now to get a final version in the Social Democratic Party convention in Atlasia's fantasy elections. Trolls don't usually take the time to do something comprehensive.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=79950.msg1854769#msg1854769

Feb. 4th: I posted a long thread about my concerns about Atlasia and my ideas concerning how to improve it in a variety of areas, and I also targeted a proposed Parliamentary System idea that was horrible as structured. Not very troll-like either.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92284.msg1910849#msg1910849

You're also free to look at all my other accounts on other political forums.
http://perspectives.com/forums/view_user.php?id=22297 (I've had a ton of arguments over social issues, Wal Mart, Iraq, religion, etc, and garnered over 3000 posts.)

http://s11.zetaboards.com/Different_Worlds/profile/81683/ (Arguments over religion, auto bailout, Reagan's legacy, drugs & the drug war, etc, over 1800 posts.)

And keep in mind even though I've been registered here for over a year and ahalf, I've only been a regular poster since, say, September, probably October, of last year.

Nothing of substance? I think not.

[Matt Damon™]

Marokai is an anti-troll who hates humble men and freedom.

[Keystone Phil]

This place is ridiculous sometimes.

YOU TROLL HOW DARE YOU INSULT PEOPLE LIKE THAT YOU'RE A LOOSE CANNON!

(Joke, by the way.)

Actually, it is trolling.

No, see, It's unfortunate that I have to explain these things but obviously you're just a little slow to the punchline. Lemme explain.

People get upset over arbitrary things here on Atlas. We've had racists, who people took seriously, and actually took their time to debate for pages and pages in thread upon thread.

Meanwhile, when someone (random) says something like "This is stupid." "This is cheerleading." "This is ridiculous." "I can't believe this." They're lambasted, called trolls, dismissed. Obviously something isn't right there. My comment was made because I essentially say the same thing when something is just so patently absurd it doesn't warrant a serious reply (such as the highly highly highly unlikely and fanfiction-esque scenario of President Santorum) but this person wasn't assailed for doing so. I'm baffled (more confused than irritated, honestly) at how Atlas reacts to certain things, so I comment on it like I did there.

As for me being a troll, trolls don't have debates over something, trolls don't have graphs about the per-dollar benefit of various proposed economic stimuli as a sig, and a troll certainly wouldn't be posting a 120 page (so far, in Word) AH Timeline on the What If? board. Ask Straha what qualifies as a troll, I'm certainly not one.

I don't think you're actually a Democrat. I mean...you have no good reason to be. You've never said anything of substance either.

Is that so? Never any substance?

Feb. 5th: I defend the Stimulus bill and go through the items falsely labeled as pork and explain why they're effective proposals.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92298.msg1911940#msg1911940

Feb. 5th: I explain my problems with deregulating health insurance to make it so everyone can buy insurance across state lines.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92337.msg1912282#msg1912282

Jan. 28th: I disagree on several points with Einzige's characterization that Populists are "historically new" to the Democratic Party, and that he's dead wrong on the stripping away of a variety of welfare measures and social services.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=91937.msg1904001#msg1904001

Dec. 13th & 17th: I strongly disagree with the foolish folk who seek to cripple or eliminate the Food Stamp Program, which is a vastly successful welfare measure that people wanted to see "reformed" to exclude "junk food" which would make the program a complete nightmare. I do the same thing four days later.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89711.msg1858386#msg1858386

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89711.msg1854505#msg1854505

Dec. 15th: I argue against McCain's "moderate" myth, deconstructing what someone mentions as reasons why he's a moderate.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89779.msg1856009#msg1856009

Dec. 3rd: I explain in great detail that the UAW is hardly at fault in the crisis of the big three, and defend an auto bailout idea (even toying with the idea of temporary nationalization) and debunk the fictional "70 dollars an hour" BS.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89288.msg1841857#msg1841857

What about just plain substance, ignoring political issues?

Nov. 29th-Present: I posted an enormous time line I'm still working on that's totaled around one hundred and twenty pages in Microsoft Word. Each update takes hours of research and collaboration. Not exactly troll-like.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=89039.msg1834585#msg1834585

Dec. 14th: I took my time to craft a political platform I'm still working on now to get a final version in the Social Democratic Party convention in Atlasia's fantasy elections. Trolls don't usually take the time to do something comprehensive.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=79950.msg1854769#msg1854769

Feb. 4th: I posted a long thread about my concerns about Atlasia and my ideas concerning how to improve it in a variety of areas, and I also targeted a proposed Parliamentary System idea that was horrible as structured. Not very troll-like either.
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=92284.msg1910849#msg1910849

You're also free to look at all my other accounts on other political forums.
http://perspectives.com/forums/view_user.php?id=22297 (I've had a ton of arguments over social issues, Wal Mart, Iraq, religion, etc, and garnered over 3000 posts.)

http://s11.zetaboards.com/Different_Worlds/profile/81683/ (Arguments over religion, auto bailout, Reagan's legacy, drugs & the drug war, etc, over 1800 posts.)

And keep in mind even though I've been registered here for over a year and ahalf, I've only been a regular poster since, say, September, probably October, of last year.

Nothing of substance? I think not.

Not good enough and you're still not really a Democrat, right? You know...because I know you're not.

[Aizen]

rick santorum has no political future. he is a failure.

[Marokai]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy

& A registered Democrat.

If you're going to make retarded allegations against me don't have me waste my time debunking them. Make it exciting.

[Keystone Phil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Democracy

What does that prove?

I can post a link to a wiki article about American conservatism. That wasn't enough when you said I wasn't really a conservative...

& A registered Democrat.

And I'm a registered Republican. Again, that wasn't enough proof for you.

If you're going to make retarded allegations against me don't have me waste my time debunking them. Make it exciting.

Maybe you'll realize how stupid your accussations over the past days have been.

[Marokai]

The problem was you respond with nothing but "HNGG! NUH UH!" and nothing more. Unlike me, who just went through most of my posting history and pointed out where and why you were wrong.

It's fairly obvious I'm a Democrat, even striking for the sake of argument the fact that everyone knows I'm a Social Democrat and I'm a registered Democrat, you should know this if you took a look at any one of my comprehensive posts on policy.

[Keystone Phil]

It's fairly obvious I'm a Democrat, even striking for the sake of argument the fact that everyone knows I'm a Social Democrat and I'm a registered Democrat, you should know this if you took a look at any one of my comprehensive posts on policy.

...

And it's fairly obvious that I'm a Republican and conservative but that didn't stop you from saying that you don't believe me to actually be a conservative Republican. It's you being a troll so I'm showing you how ridiculous it is.

[Marokai]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

[Keystone Phil]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

[Marokai]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

[Keystone Phil]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

Just like how if I don't post my past substantive debates that means I've never had any. Ok.

[Marokai]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

Just like how if I don't post my past substantive debates that means I've never had any. Ok.

I simply said I hadn't seen any and if I was wrong I'd appreciate being pointed out where I was wrong. Ive had some posters tell me elsewhere that you have had debates though, they were just mainly a year or two ago rather than lately. I'm taking their word for it.

[Keystone Phil]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

Just like how if I don't post my past substantive debates that means I've never had any. Ok.

I simply said I hadn't seen any and if I was wrong I'd appreciate being pointed out where I was wrong. Ive had some posters tell me elsewhere that you have had debates though, they were just mainly a year or two ago rather than lately. I'm taking their word for it.

LOL

My substantive arguments were "mainly" a year or two ago. Brittain, who said I have had substantive debates, wasn't here that long ago. Same with Lunar.

[Marokai]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

Just like how if I don't post my past substantive debates that means I've never had any. Ok.

I simply said I hadn't seen any and if I was wrong I'd appreciate being pointed out where I was wrong. Ive had some posters tell me elsewhere that you have had debates though, they were just mainly a year or two ago rather than lately. I'm taking their word for it.

LOL

My substantive arguments were "mainly" a year or two ago. Brittain, who said I have had substantive debates, wasn't here that long ago. Same with Lunar.

Which would match up with me saying that I just havent seen any. What's your point?

[Keystone Phil]

Please point out where I said I didn't think you were really a Republican. I can wait.

You said it elsewhere and it's just further proof of your trolling.

I feel like I'm in a junior high cafeteria. Either post something to back up your claims or don't post.

Just like how if I don't post my past substantive debates that means I've never had any. Ok.

I simply said I hadn't seen any and if I was wrong I'd appreciate being pointed out where I was wrong. Ive had some posters tell me elsewhere that you have had debates though, they were just mainly a year or two ago rather than lately. I'm taking their word for it.

LOL

My substantive arguments were "mainly" a year or two ago. Brittain, who said I have had substantive debates, wasn't here that long ago. Same with Lunar.

Which would match up with me saying that I just havent seen any. What's your point?

You said that people told you that my arguments of substance were from two years ago! They weren't here/active then!

[Prez Duke]

I don't have any problems with Mr. Santorum, but like others have said, it is hard for someone to run and win the presidency after losing their most recently election by 17 points. It wasn't just a narrow loss. He got stomped. If Rick wanted to run for President, it would have been wise for him to just retire after 2006 after seeing polls showing him losing badly to Casey Jr.

[Gravis Marketing]

Sarah Palin was made into a laughing stock (rightly or wrongly, I don't care). She went down hard in 2008. Why isn't that as bad as Santorum's loss?

Because she's got high popularity ratings among Republican voters. This makes her a factor in the primary. I would guess that Santorum, at best, has low familiarity ratings with most base voters, even if surely they'd like him if given an informed ballot poll. People are emotionally invested in Sarah Palin and see her as a leader for the future and a young, dynamic figure. Santorum may have had that window open in 2000, but in 2012 he would have to be reintroduced to the base voters to get that far, and he's not going to get that opportunity.

Rick Santorum isn't "Sweet Rick Santorum," pilloried by a vicious press, he's just "Rick who?"

[Keystone Phil]

and he's not going to get that opportunity.

Rick Santorum isn't "Sweet Rick Santorum," pilloried by a vicious press, he's just "Rick who?"

Again, you're taking your bitter, vicious hatred of the man and re-writing the story. You want to say that I'm biased, too? Fine. However, it's fairly well known that Santorum is very well known to the base. No one in the grassroots movement is asking, "Rick who?"

People know the guy because he is speaking across the country to conservative groups, he's on FOX News almost every week and they didn't just forget him because he lost in 2006.

You want to make an argument that he won't be the darling of the conservative movement over the next couple of years? Go ahead. I'll disagree and say that he certainly has a good chance at it but I can let that disagreement go. What won't just be accepted is this idea that Santorum is simply a forgotten figure among the people that make up our grassroots effort.

[So the Heroes Fall]

Your logic is so incredibly ridiculous. No one has ever been nominated after such a loss, therefore, it cannot happen.

More like that it's such a large and obvious handicap it'll like never happen. It's also why the Reagan comparison fails so horribly.

Tell me when the last time someone who lost that badly had such prominence in their respective party.

Santorum doesn't have any prominence in the party. Howard Dean is an example of someone who had prominence in his party after leaving office. Santorum appears on Fox News at times and gets talked about a lot on internet message boards. Hardly the same.

Tell me when the last time someone who lost that badly even ran for President.

And there is a reason for that you know...

I've gone over time and time again why Santorum could be nominated. You're just suffering from your OCD again and want to hear it over and over and over so that you can repeat your same points over and over and over...

Most of it is just wishful thinking based on a set of circumstances very unlikely to all happen. If something has a 25% chance of happening, it's silly to laugh it off. However if something requiring four events with a 25% chance of happening to happen, it has a less than 1% chance of happening. Sort of the case here. And I'd put the odds of Santorum even running at much lower than 25%, or even 5%.

Anyway, weren't you laughing at the idea of Mike DeWine making a comeback for anything on another thread? Not that I disagree on that, but it's the same thing.

And to think back in 2006 I was hoping Santorum's coming defeat would put an end to your little mancrush and we could quit having arguments of everyone on the forum against you about him. Guess I underestimated the obsession.

[Gravis Marketing]

bitter, vicious hatred of the man

Oh, Mary. I could just as easily cite your slavish, naive adoration of the man and how it warps your views, couldn't I? Seeing him repudiated in 2006, and not having to hear him in the Senate since then, did wonders for my feelings toward him. Now I just don't care.

Please accept that I genuinely find the idea of a Santorum comeback ludicrous instead of looking around for other motives.

[Keystone Phil]

More like that it's such a large and obvious handicap it'll like never happen. It's also why the Reagan comparison fails so horribly.

It's yet to be seen that it's such a large and obvious handicap six years after the fact!

The Reagan comparison is made on different points, ass.

Santorum doesn't have any prominence in the party. Howard Dean is an example of someone who had prominence in his party after leaving office. Santorum appears on Fox News at times and gets talked about a lot on internet message boards. Hardly the same.

Santorum has been on a nationwide speaking tour for the past two years. I guess that's what happens when you're a has been...?

And there is a reason for that you know...

So that means it will never, ever happen? Again, awfully cocky.

Anyway, weren't you laughing at the idea of Mike DeWine making a comeback for anything on another thread? Not that I disagree on that, but it's the same thing.

Uh...no, I wasn't. I'd laugh it off for President because DeWine is not liked by the base at all.

And to think back in 2006 I was hoping Santorum's coming defeat would put an end to your little mancrush and we could quit having arguments of everyone on the forum against you about him. Guess I underestimated the obsession.

My "obsession" is just as bad as everyone else's. If he's a washed up loser and you really believe that he's finished, why debate it anymore? Let it be then. The fact of the matter is that you love this discussion as much as I do but it also comes with a bit of anxiety (whether you admit it or not).

The Fairytale Presidency is hitting its first couple of bumps in the road. Now your mancrush on the President will prevent you from ever admitting that things are going poorly but deep down, most people know that the idea of Obama reign in glory isn't going to happen. So what happens if 2012 is looking really bad for you guys? What happens when people like Santorum or Palin or Huckabee - all people you guys hate with a burning passion - actually have a shot? The once unelectables are suddenly top tier.

This happened to my party in 2008. We loved the idea of running against an "inexperienced, very liberal Senator." And guess what? My party learned from its arrogance. You and your's are still far to proud and won't ever openly entertain the idea that candidates you once laughed off might actually capitalize on an unpopular President (again, assuming things get even worse).

[Keystone Phil]

bitter, vicious hatred of the man

Oh, Mary. I could just as easily cite your slavish, naive adoration of the man and how it warps your views, couldn't I?

No, you really can't and I'm tired of going over this: I've actually spoken out against the man on plenty of occassions. I don't have any naive adoration when I speak publicly about my differences with the guy.

Seeing him repudiated in 2006, and not having to hear him in the Senate since then, did wonders for my feelings toward him. Now I just don't care.

Oh, sure, friend. If you really didn't care, you'd let it be. So it's either you love to hate the man to this day and find satisfaction is talking about him or you just love getting on my case about it. Take your pick. As for the latter option, please realize that I've gotten your points about the guy already so you don't "need" to post your points about him anymore.

Please accept that I genuinely find the idea of a Santorum comeback ludicrous instead of looking around for other motives.

Ok, you've made that point clear before. I think your reasoning isn't all that strong but whatever. We can agree to disagree. I won't just let this idea that I adore the man unconditionally float around though. It's not true and I'd like people to acknowledge that.

[Nixon in '80]

I feel kind of lame jumping into this incredibly complicated and tangled debate this late, but I'd like to make point, which has already kind of been made by others.

Rick Santorum as the "darling of the conservative movement":

The conservative movement already has a darling, and her name is Sarah Palin. She's younger, more attractive, more charismatic, and untainted by electoral failure (unless you count McCain's, but nobody in the conservative movement does). A lot of conservatives have a lot invested in "Palin 2012", and they're not gonna dump the "future of the party" for a has-been.

Sure, she could lose her popularity, lose reelection, run for Senate, or get struck by lightning...

But even then, the conservative movement has another darling waiting in the wings. His name is Piyush Jindal, and he's younger, more attractive, more charismatic, and untainted by electoral failure.

[Gravis Marketing]

I won't just let this idea that I adore the man unconditionally float around though. It's not true and I'd like people to acknowledge that.

You accuse people of being swayed by their emotions toward him and that it clouds their judgment. Why do you think you'd be immune to that? Or if you find such a suggestion offensive and insulting... what does that say about your assuming it about everyone who disagrees with you about Santorum?