The Situation Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Mitt Romney is easily the best and most sane choice from the GOP. He has shown to be liberal with his decisions in the past, and I legitimately think that he can contribute to fixing the deficit America has. Obama just hasn't show the ability to do so. I wanna see what Romney can do, but another 4 years of Obama wouldn't be the worst thing. Rick Perry and Bachmann are psycho. Ron Paul is very extreme with some of his views. He wants to pull all foreign aid overseas which would be extremely detrimental. Gary Johnson would be the best, but there's no way he's gonna win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MANGO Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I don't like Republicans but, I've always like Ron Paul. He is a no nonsence kind of guy that could cut through all the BS in washington. Having said that.......It's also the reason he won't be elected. This is primarily the reason change in government will never happen, you need to have the support of all the people who are the problem. HAHAHA...what a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armada Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I've always loved Ron Paul. Just not a fan of the republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hey guys guess what. According to Herman Cain, if you're not rich and you don't have a job, it's your fault! **** me, looks like I'm going to need to make some money...oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 Hey guys guess what. According to Herman Cain, if you're not rich and you don't have a job, it's your fault! **** me, looks like I'm going to need to make some money...oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 I don't like Republicans but, I've always like Ron Paul. He is a no nonsence kind of guy that could cut through all the BS in washington. Having said that.......It's also the reason he won't be elected. This is primarily the reason change in government will never happen, you need to have the support of all the people who are the problem. HAHAHA...what a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted October 12, 2011 Author Share Posted October 12, 2011 He'd also tolerate rascism if anti-rascism laws bumped up against his particular ideology surroundings business rights. This man would be a dangerous leader to minorities, the poor, and would turn the U.S. towards into non-interventionist isolationism.....opening the door for China to become the dominant power in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted October 12, 2011 Share Posted October 12, 2011 Isolationism is different from non-interventionism. Isolationism involves not trading and diplomacy with other countries while Ron Paul is a strong advocate of free trade and diplomacy. China is becoming the dominant economic power. They aren't interested in setting up foreign bases though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.K. Chesterton Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 I think Rick Santorum is my pick now. But I have always missed the GOP debates, much to my chagrin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Hey guys guess what. According to Herman Cain, if you're not rich and you don't have a job, it's your fault! **** me, looks like I'm going to need to make some money...oh wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Situation Posted December 6, 2011 Author Share Posted December 6, 2011 I think Rick Santorum is my pick now. But I have always missed the GOP debates, much to my chagrin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Yeah the sad truth is that the US political system (and to a lesser degree ours too) is simply, completely, utterly dysfunctional. There's no grand conspiracy. It's simply run by special interest and corporations and is at this point simply a convoluted mess of bureaucracy, contradictory policies and laws. Whole thing needs a mulligan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navyblue Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 What ever you do, don't google "Santorum" I did.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Who the heck is Gary Johnson in the poll? I never heard of that guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbridled_id Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 "I would prefer Obama win in 2012 at least over most of the candidates at the moment because I think his weak performance so far has been mostly out of his control." With a majority in the house and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate... excuses are a sign of weakness. When he loses in 2012 what will you call all those who voted against the boy king ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gretzky's Mullet Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 People seem to love Ron Paul. I say he's one of the biggest nutjobs running. Give me Jon Huntsman any day. But he has no chance of winning, he's the most diametrically opposed to the Tea Party that they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sakage.shinga Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Ron Paul because he has integrity. Show me another Republican who does. I don't agree with Ron Paul, and I do not want him to win. But if it has to be someone, let it be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyledude Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 Ron Paul is founding father material. They desperately need him to be president. It's too bad the establishment won't allow it. He's the only Republican candidate that isn't a bumbling idiot puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Send in the Clueless By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: December 4, 2011 There are two crucial things you need to understand about the current state of American politics. First, given the still dire economic situation, 2012 should be a year of Republican triumph. Second, the G.O.P. may nonetheless snatch defeat from the jaws of victory — because Herman Cain was not an accident. Think about what it takes to be a viable Republican candidate today. You have to denounce Big Government and high taxes without alienating the older voters who were the key to G.O.P. victories last year — and who, even as they declare their hatred of government, will balk at any hint of cuts to Social Security and Medicare (death panels!). And you also have to denounce President Obama, who enacted a Republican-designed health reform and killed Osama bin Laden, as a radical socialist who is undermining American security. So what kind of politician can meet these basic G.O.P. requirements? There are only two ways to make the cut: to be totally cynical or totally clueless. Mitt Romney embodies the first option. He’s not a stupid man; he knows perfectly well, to take a not incidental example, that the Obama health reform is identical in all important respects to the reform he himself introduced in Massachusetts — but that doesn’t stop him from denouncing the Obama plan as a vast government takeover that is nothing like what he did. He presumably knows how to read a budget, which means that he must know that defense spending has continued to rise under the current administration, but this doesn’t stop him from pledging to reverse Mr. Obama’s “massive defense cuts.” Mr. Romney’s strategy, in short, is to pretend that he shares the ignorance and misconceptions of the Republican base. He isn’t a stupid man — but he seems to play one on TV. Unfortunately from his point of view, however, his acting skills leave something to be desired, and his insincerity shines through. So the base still hungers for someone who really, truly believes what every candidate for the party’s nomination must pretend to believe. Yet as I said, the only way to actually believe the modern G.O.P. catechism is to be completely clueless. And that’s why the Republican primary has taken the form it has, in which a candidate nobody likes and nobody trusts has faced a series of clueless challengers, each of whom has briefly soared before imploding under the pressure of his or her own cluelessness. Think in particular of Rick Perry, a conservative true believer who seemingly had everything it took to clinch the nomination — until he opened his mouth. So will Newt Gingrich suffer the same fate? Not necessarily. Many observers seem surprised that Mr. Gingrich’s, well, colorful personal history isn’t causing him more problems, but they shouldn’t be. If hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue, conservatives often seem inclined to accept that tribute, voting for candidates who publicly espouse conservative moral principles whatever their personal behavior. Did I mention that David Vitter is still in the Senate? And Mr. Gingrich has some advantages none of the previous challengers had. He is by no means the deep thinker he imagines himself to be, but he’s a glib speaker, even when he has no idea what he’s talking about. And my sense is that he’s also very good at doublethink — that even when he knows what he’s saying isn’t true, he manages to believe it while he’s saying it. So he may not implode like his predecessors. The larger point, however, is that whoever finally gets the Republican nomination will be a deeply flawed candidate. And these flaws won’t be an accident, the result of bad luck regarding who chose to make a run this time around; the fact that the party is committed to demonstrably false beliefs means that only fakers or the befuddled can get through the selection process. Of course, given the terrible economic picture and the tendency of voters to blame whoever holds the White House for bad times, even a deeply flawed G.O.P. nominee might very well win the presidency. But then what? The Washington Post quotes an unnamed Republican adviser who compared what happened to Mr. Cain, when he suddenly found himself leading in the polls, to the proverbial tale of the dog who had better not catch that car he’s chasing. “Something great and awful happened, the dog caught the car. And of course, dogs don’t know how to drive cars. So he had no idea what to do with it.” The same metaphor, it seems to me, might apply to the G.O.P. pursuit of the White House next year. If the dog actually catches the car — the actual job of running the U.S. government — it will have no idea what to do, because the realities of government in the 21st century bear no resemblance to the mythology all ambitious Republican politicians must pretend to believe. And what will happen then? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/05/opinion/send-in-the-clueless.html?_r=2&src=tp&smid=fb-share Heh heh. It's clowns all the way down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buggernut Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 I'll take a live-and-let-live libertarian over a dog-eat-dog neocon anyday. Take a wild guess who I voted for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.