|
Post by fatmenace on May 25, 2011 14:47:04 GMT -6
Yeah, let's get it started.
If you voted for Obama in 08, will you be voting for him again?
|
|
|
Post by gk on May 25, 2011 14:48:23 GMT -6
Jesus. Already? Someone's watching too much MSNBC....
|
|
|
Post by gk on May 25, 2011 14:52:43 GMT -6
But since you asked.... maybe (probably?) .
I've been thinking about the Ron Paul quandary as it fits into my predictive voting behavior.
Let's say that somehow Ron Paul does get the nomination. Does my 100% agreement with Paul on foreign policy supercede & 100% disagreement with him about the environment and education outweigh my 85% disagreement with Obama about foreign policy, 90% agreement with Obama about education, and 80% agreement with Obama about the environment?
[note: numbers are approximated, and issues chosen arbitrarily for instructive purposes]
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on May 25, 2011 15:05:51 GMT -6
Romney's getting the nomination. I'm still disappointed Ron Paul is running as an R. Once the convention is over, he'll be out of the public eye. If he ran as an I or L he could still be in the light.
Here's how I look at it. If we don't 1. end our military campaigns and 2. put an end to the financial raping by Goldman Sachs, the Fed, etc, then it doesn't matter what the candidate does about the environment, or gay rights, or abortion or whatever a person's passions on secondary (yeah, I called them secondary) are. We're going to be toast. We have the most debt we've ever had and the government's solution seems to be...more debt. At this point we don't even hide our attempts to overrule the sovereignty of other nations.
A friend of mine today (who's gay) was telling me he'll vote again for Obama because Obama is awesome on gay rights. I just...I didn't even know how to respond. I can't even fathom at this point putting anything like that above the other issues. At this point there's not even going to be a nation in six years for anyone to be gay in.
|
|
|
Post by gk on May 25, 2011 15:12:38 GMT -6
Not sure how a Romney vote alleviates any of that. Also, not sure how a "none of the above" vote alleviates any of that.
Here's my thinking: Structurally, I agree with you that an Obama or Romney 2013-2017 presidency won't really change much in terms of our debt, the Fed, etc.
But there will be differences "at the margins" re: environment, education, civil rights, etc. And at this point, that's where I'll vote.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on May 25, 2011 15:17:55 GMT -6
Oh, of course Romney will be a disaster. He'll be no different than Bush or Obama.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on May 27, 2011 16:29:56 GMT -6
Rumors are flying all afternoon about Rick Perry's imminent announcement to run. He has a real possibility of getting the nom. He's as close to a R Bush clone as one can get (if you don't count Obama). Charismatic, likable, has Presidential hair.
He'd be a horrible President. But I think that's the point.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on May 27, 2011 20:22:21 GMT -6
He has too much baggage (rumored affairs, suggested secession, etc.). If he somehow got the nomination he won't get elected.
He's testing the water- when he realizes it could jeopardize his current cushy gig, especially if he doesn't take off, he'll quit. I think his real ambition is to take over Texas A&M. Which is fine- he can reinforce the good ol' boy network that destroys their athletic program.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Jun 5, 2011 18:31:42 GMT -6
Pawlenty tells Iowa that he'd end (or maybe it was just cut) corn subsidies. Gotta respect that.
Also, Huntsman has said some pretty reasonable things lately. So there's that.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 9, 2011 10:29:45 GMT -6
I (obviously) can't stand Rick Perry. And frankly, I think we've had enough Republican Texas Governors who couldn't crack a 3.0 GPA in college as US President for my lifetime.
But assuming he runs, ads like this will be a pretty compelling message for voters, I'm guessing:
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 9, 2011 14:01:39 GMT -6
I also can't stand Perry. He will, however, be a very tough candidate to beat. Of all the Republican candidates, he is by far the most globalist, and has been in the pocket of CFR for many years.
I'll be honest, outside of Ron Paul, I fear what a R would do to the world. Someone like Obama, unashamed liberal, has continued to unleash the hounds of war that Bush started. I think a Perry or Romney would make Obama look like a Nobel Peace Prize winner (rimshot).
Of course, after 3 years of Obama, it should be obvious all Presidents, regardless of party, dance to same music when it comes to foreign policy. It's like they're allowed to do whatever they want domestically, but have to kiss the ring for the foreign stuff. I'll end it now before my inner conspiracy theorist comes out.
But yeah, gonna be hard for the other R's to beat Perry, even though so far only Ron Paul is polling well against Obama.
|
|
|
Post by rayrayxl3 on Aug 9, 2011 21:30:39 GMT -6
I will not, under any circumstances, vote for Rick Perry.
At this rate, it starting to feel like the Republican party is conceding this election and focusing on 2016. Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention, but I feel like there was a lot more separation from the pack 4 years ago. Now we've got people like Tim Pawlenty, who couldn't even govern the state of Minnesota much less the entire nation, who are "serious" candidates.
On the plus side, if the Republicans put up a paper candidate, maybe we can take all the campaign money and stimulate the crap out of the economy!
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 10, 2011 8:37:10 GMT -6
Wasn't sure if I should put this here or in the "ok let's make fun of people" thread.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 16, 2011 0:42:25 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 16, 2011 8:22:16 GMT -6
OK maybe you guys can help me out here, this being one of my only windows into the mind of conservative orthodoxy.
Everyone's all "jeez these are terrible candidates." And I guess I don't understand is why Republicans are so unenamored of this field. It seems to me, between the top 4 candidates (Bachman, Paul, Romney, and Perry) you've got everything you would supposedly want in a candidate.
You want a former business guy? You got Romney. Think he's not authentic enough? Fine, the next three candidates are supposedly authentic.
You want a never-bending conservative? Well take your pick of Bachmann or Paul. If you're into the weird parts of the Bible, take Bachmann. If you hate the FED and the EPA, go with Paul. Don't think they're electable? How about Rick Perry? The guy looks like he was built in a lab that creates people that look like U.S. Presidents. He's a governor (check) of a state that is supposedly doing well (check) and he goes jogging with a laser pistol (check).
Afraid of too much baggage? Or that these characters are not palatable enough for the mass public? Well, you kicked out all the moderates that might be palatable to the mass public.
I guess I'm just not sure what Republicans are looking for: THIS IS WHO YOU ARE. Religious ideologues that would never dare raise an inch of revenue even on a 10/1 spending-cut-to-revenue-ratio. Please, describe YOUR ideal candidate, because I'm guessing it'll sound a lot like one of the above four candidates.
|
|