|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Aug 16, 2011 11:47:34 GMT -6
I think you've encapsulated the problem with the party Geoff. There are a lot of people who get upset because they don't get their ideal candidate in the race and decide the party isn't worth supporting. You'll never get a candidate who shares you every view unless you yourself run.
Personally, I'm after the following items in this order: 1. Will cut spending at the federal level so that we can get our budget in order and reduce the scope of government. 2. Will work to repeal the health care bill passed under Obama. 3. Will try to keep taxes reasonable. I can live with increases if #1 above happens, but I think raising on just the "rich" because "they need to pay their fair share" is class warfare and bad for the economy.
And based on the above, just about any of these candidates beat the pants off Obama.
My father is 100% convinced that this sort of attitude in 1992 led to the election of Bill Clinton. And a lot of folks on the Democratic side feel Nader did the same thing in 2000 and allowed George W Bush to be elected.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 16, 2011 12:23:37 GMT -6
Personally, I'm after the following items in this order: 1. Will cut spending at the federal level so that we can get our budget in order and reduce the scope of government. 2. Will work to repeal the health care bill passed under Obama. 3. Will try to keep taxes reasonable. Yup, that's everyone in the GOP. So why are Republicans bumming about their choices?
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Aug 16, 2011 17:27:31 GMT -6
I'm not sure. I think this goes hand-in-hand with the "Things were better back in the good old days, when we had real candidates." There's not a good reason but people whine because they've got some legendary symbol in their heads, and a real person will never measure up to it.
The fact of the matter is, the old days aren't what we remember. I've been researching pretty hard into the Kennedy Election from 1960, and there's all kinds of crazy mudslinging, non-issue distractions, etc. as we've got today.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 16, 2011 17:50:58 GMT -6
I want a candidate who will immediately end the wars and withdraw the troops from bases all over the world. To me, this is the most important issue out there. The TRILLIONS we would save by doing so would fix our deficit. There is only one candidate willing to do this. And spare me any rhetoric about having to fix the mess. Leaving immediately would fix 90% of the problems.
I want a candidate who will bring the Bush administration to justice regarding war crimes (and all they encompass).
I want a candidate who will immediately repeal the entire Patriot Act and who understands the only reason "terrorists" are trying to kill us is because we're bombing their countries for oil and money and killing their families in the process.
I want a candidate who will re-open the investigation into 9/11. Ron Paul tends to believe the official story, so I'm pretty sure this will never happen.
I want a candidate who has a 30 year track record of standing against big government, even if that meant being ostracized by his entire party for doing so. I don't trust the tea party candidates anymore to eliminate government intrusion.
I want a candidate that will enforce state's rights and forbid the federal government from interfering. This will probably lead to an assassination, but I do believe Paul has the stones to stand up to it.
I want a candidate that will eliminate the federal reserve. The federal reserver is probably the single most destructive thing ever unleashed on this country.
And finally, I want a candidate that will not divide Jerusalem into a two-state city.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 16, 2011 18:02:01 GMT -6
If Paul isn't nominated, I honestly don't care if the R's win.
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 16, 2011 19:11:10 GMT -6
I just wish Palin was running, then I'd have someone to vote for.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 17, 2011 11:56:54 GMT -6
From Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight(And, Chad, before you go ballistic about the placement of Ron Paul, I'd suggest that "conservative" means something different here than it does to a libertarian type.)
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 19, 2011 19:34:48 GMT -6
3. Will try to keep taxes reasonable. I can live with increases if #1 above happens, but I think raising on just the "rich" because "they need to pay their fair share" is class warfare and bad for the economy. Jon Stewart would like to address your "class warfare" accusation:
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 20, 2011 7:48:57 GMT -6
Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by "Redneck" Johnson on Aug 20, 2011 8:29:24 GMT -6
My issue is that the word "fair share" gets thrown around a lot without a definition. What is really "fair" and who gets to set that? Just because the rich can spare the money, why should they be obliged to give this proportion to the government? And what services should the government really be responsible for providing? This is the debate.
There has to be a balance between compassion for people who are in a tough situation, and understanding that we have to set realistic economic limits to what the government can do. I characterize Obama as using the class warfare card because I feel his comments are really aimed at turning the lower end of the tax bracket against the wealthy. When he is appealing to fairness, there's not some universal standard that is being violated. He just thinks that since the rich have more, they should be paying more.
|
|
|
Post by grubbi on Aug 20, 2011 10:50:51 GMT -6
My issue is that the word "fair share" gets thrown around a lot without a definition. What is really "fair" and who gets to set that? Just because the rich can spare the money, why should they be obliged to give this proportion to the government? And what services should the government really be responsible for providing? This is the debate. There has to be a balance between compassion for people who are in a tough situation, and understanding that we have to set realistic economic limits to what the government can do. I characterize Obama as using the class warfare card because I feel his comments are really aimed at turning the lower end of the tax bracket against the wealthy. When he is appealing to fairness, there's not some universal standard that is being violated. He just thinks that since the rich have more, they should be paying more. AMEN! Couldn't have said it better.
|
|
|
Post by gk on Aug 20, 2011 13:02:30 GMT -6
He just thinks that since the rich have more, they should be paying more. SOCIALIST.
|
|
|
Post by fatmenace on Aug 21, 2011 6:14:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 22, 2011 8:22:36 GMT -6
What do you guys think about Huntsman? It seems like he's not crazy - that's a plus.
|
|
|
Post by mayor on Aug 22, 2011 8:24:29 GMT -6
Meant to post this link:
|
|