Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

You guys keep hoping the shit you are chucking at the wall sticks. No one wants to go back to Bush era policies and I can't imagine your leading candidates would fair well in a debate about healthcare since one inspired it and the other lobbied for it.
Not my guys . I never lose sleep over who gets in the White House , just a reply to your feeling that Obama could not lose . If we defualt on our loans and the dollar tanks .... so does Obama .Should we see job growth and higher wages , he gets re-elected . It was Clinton's and your far left policies that brought us the housing collapse , not Bush's ... New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?pagewanted=all) Democrats Fighting Regulation of Freddie & Fannie - YouTube sorry if the truth hurts .

Clinton is one of the greatest presidents in American history. We would be lucky to get another president that was committed to balancing the budget, creating jobs, and handling foreign affairs in a way that doesn't bankrupt the economy (see the Balkans). From what I understand Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin in that they both created debt at an alarming rate.

The way I see it you need a Clinton in the white house in the event of the dem's getting the White House and a Regan if the GOP gets the election. Seeing as how Obama is not a Clinton we're left keeping our fingers crossed for a Regan-esque President to emerge from the GOP. Such is the life of an independent.

@Dirtbag59: I tend to stay away from comparing one presidency to another. My only exception would George W. Bush's time in office. But each presidency should be judged and compared through the lens of history. Every president inherits a different world than his predecessor and we can always think of areas for improvement regarding policy. I think it's really difficult to argue that Bill Clinton would have handled the Libyan crisis and Egypt any better or differently, for that matter, than President Obama. One of Clinton's biggest regrets until this day is not intervening in the Rwandan genocide and most foreign policy experts believe his response to the Balkins was a bit tardy. On the other hand, no matter how the economy turns out Obama will be known for ordering the killing of Bin Laden.

That being said and bias removed, I think history will look favorably on President Obama's eight years in office. Bill Clinton was the right guy for that time, but he didn't inherit two and oversee two theaters of war, a global financial crises, an auto industry on the brink of bankruptcy, and a country literally spiraling into depression. In some ways we really are comparing apples and pears.

Okay now I understand what you're getting at. Make no mistake about it though. A lot of those numbers for those that oppose gay marriage and civil unions are from the over 50 crowd. If it's not far right by the numbers now then it will be in time. Only 35% oppose both civil unions and gay marriage.

Another interesting aspect of the poll
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/gjuyiibfpuo7c09cfwsb_w.gif
In other news though it's nice to see that Ron Paul has a chance to win the GOP. In fact if he wins the nomination I might just register to vote for him. Then again I live in a red state so it might be a moot point.

I wouldn't waste too much time analyzing Gallup presidential polls. They're all snapshots, but Gallup in particular is becoming more of an outlier and usually lags about +5 points behind public sentiment. There's zero chance Ron Paul becomes the GOP nominee, in my opinion. His views on foreign policy resonate with his base of followers and a small faction of liberals, but on the whole they don't reflect conservative values and I think the direction he wants to take government is pretty radical. I think a Ron Paul victory in Iowa is an indicator of how irrelevant Iowa has become in primary voting and not a reflection of Ron Paul's strength as a candidate. But we shall see.

"War" on Christmas and gay marriage bans are two issues that are motivated heavily by religious beliefs. Now I'll be the first to admit that the War on Christmas is petty and a pointless cause for those that believe heavily in separation of church and state. Maybe it's to distract the far right from pushing creationism in public schools. I don't know. Personally I don't care for it either way. To me Christmas is purely a commercial holiday.



http://www.loudountimes.com/images/uploads/santaskeleton_thumb.JPG

UPDATE: Camera put up to monitor vandals | LoudounTimes.com (http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/santa_skeleton_left_amputated_on_courthouse_lawn12 3/)


What they gathered to be the meaning of the skeleton Santa was Christmas was being fueled by commercialism and didn’t understand why residents were so up-in-arms over the display.
“Christmas has already been destroyed,” Maria Zumer said. “It’s so commercialized.”


Serious question DirtBag: Are you the Loudon County Courthouse Holiday Display vandal?????

Dirtbag, I agree with you that in time gay marriage will be more accepted but I don’t think it will be anytime soon. Old people arnt dying as fast as they used to, and younger people usually become more socially conservative as they age. I also see no chance of a federal marriage amendment ever happening, the only amendment that didn’t expand civil rights was prohibition and that didn’t work out.

And like you said Obama and Bush are essentially the same in that they are both big spending, big government politicians. Neither the Democratic or Republican parties are fiscally conservative/responsible whatsoever anymore. I too would vote for Ron Paul, but like 12th said I doubt he gets the nomination, but not necessarily because his views don’t resonate with the majority of Americans. To NCSkins point the MainStream Media is so quick to dismiss him, his views have no chance to resonate with the majority of Americans. Just the fact theres a 40+ page thread on a Redskins forum about GOP candidates with dozens of links makes me think a lot of news programs are going to have to change the way they report information. Calling out and discrediting news networks is now easily accessible and is/has become big business, maybe that will change or shape things more as the practice becomes mainstream.

His views on foreign policy resonate with his base of followers and a small faction of liberals, but on the whole they don't reflect conservative values and I think the direction he wants to take government is pretty radical.


You mean the foreign policy that says we won't be meddling in other people's affairs? Dear god that's a great thing. Did you happen to watch that video I posted on the other page? Apparently not.

I think Americans are tired of war and want our government to get the hell out of other people's business and tend to our own. Paul is hands down the better candidate of those other clueless monkeys.



Also, this.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-politifact-came-out-and-said/

Dirtbag, I agree with you that in time gay marriage will be more accepted but I don’t think it will be anytime soon. Old people arnt dying as fast as they used to, and younger people usually become more socially conservative as they age. I also see no chance of a federal marriage amendment ever happening, the only amendment that didn’t expand civil rights was prohibition and that didn’t work out.

And like you said Obama and Bush are essentially the same in that they are both big spending, big government politicians. Neither the Democratic or Republican parties are fiscally conservative/responsible whatsoever anymore. I too would vote for Ron Paul, but like 12th said I doubt he gets the nomination, but not necessarily because his views don’t resonate with the majority of Americans. To NCSkins point the MainStream Media is so quick to dismiss him, his views have no chance to resonate with the majority of Americans. Just the fact theres a 40+ page thread on a Redskins forum about GOP candidates with dozens of links makes me think a lot of news programs are going to have to change the way they report information. Calling out and discrediting news networks is now easily accessible and is/has become big business, maybe that will change or shape things more as the practice becomes mainstream.

My point about Ron Paul is that most of his foreign policy views don't resonate within his own party. I don't think the rest of America isn't paying attention to this guy yet.

Clinton is one of the greatest presidents in American history. We would be lucky to get another president that was committed to balancing the budget, creating jobs, and handling foreign affairs in a way that doesn't bankrupt the economy (see the Balkans). From what I understand Obama and Bush are two sides of the same coin in that they both created debt at an alarming rate.

The way I see it you need a Clinton in the white house in the event of the dem's getting the White House and a Regan if the GOP gets the election. Seeing as how Obama is not a Clinton we're left keeping our fingers crossed for a Regan-esque President to emerge from the GOP. Such is the life of an independent.

Clinton was going to bust the budget wide open with Hillary care if he was allowed. It was only when the Rep. and Newt. took control of the house that Clinton agreed to cut spending. I'll give him credit for seeing that the American people wanted to balance the budget but that was only after the land slide victory of the Rep. after his second yr in office.

You mean the foreign policy that says we won't be meddling in other people's affairs? Dear god that's a great thing. Did you happen to watch that video I posted on the other page? Apparently not.

I think Americans are tired of war and want our government to get the hell out of other people's business and tend to our own. Paul is hands down the better candidate of those other clueless monkeys.



Also, this.

PolitiFact | Michele Bachmann says "PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true" in last debate (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/15/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-says-politifact-came-out-and-said/)

You think the current administration likes war? We just ended the war in Iraq with Republicans kicking and screaming because we didn't leave 10,000 troops behind. And the President will begin a significant draw down in Afghanistan next summer. Exactly how is Ron Paul different than Obama or even John Huntsman on those two fronts? In fact, Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul agree to some extent about the wars. President Obama doesn't believe in torture, neither does Ron Paul. President Obama wants to close Gitmo and so does Ron Paul and John McCain and John Huntsman, I might add.

Now where they differ, and Ron Paul hasn't been completely clear on this, is how to execute the war on terror and sending foreign aid to some of our allies, which has always been a staple of good diplomacy.

Look, the idea that America with all of it's vast military resources and diplomatic clout around the globe will completely stay out other countries business is foolish thinking and probably not in our long term interests when it comes to a range of issues. If our intervention in Libya can keep the price of oil from spiking globally and keep inflation in check here at home, then I'm all for a measured response and a judicious use of our military capability.