Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

"Turning the blind eye just for sake of waving your elephant/donkey flag around to go along with the crowd isn't my thing."

"Formidable ticket? ...lol Only if dumbasses are voting."

"It's a shame you guys can make this much noise over something that counts. Politics. We might would actually get something accomplished."

"Stop with this stupid Repubs vs Libs shit. It's ignorant and you are in fact a big reason why the US is failing if you keep supporting these idiots."

"I hold no affiliation to a party unlike the rest of the moronic Americans out there."

"If you don't think our foreign policy isn't the reason we are hated, then you seriously don't need to be voting."

I'll close with a quote from President Lincoln, ""Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

You and JoeRedskins are right. I guess there is some of that tone in my posts and I apologize. It's hard when you see people blinded by stuff that corporate media spews(all types) and they keep doing the same things and voting the same way over and over and over again hoping for different results. I think the two party system is a sham at this point. Neither one of the group is going to fix our country.

No fair though, that comment about Bachman was true though. Come on man, you have to question anybody supporting either her or Palin. My parents are Republicans and they even agree....lol

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I would respectfully disagree. Regardless of your opinions as to either of them, to suggest, strictly from a policy stand point, that Obama and Bush are interchangeable is just plain obtuse.

If I said they were interchangeable, it was in jest. I think Obama's policies so far have pretty much in line with the policies that Bush rode out on.

[12thMan]

JoeRedskins, I don't think his affiliation with President Obama will hurt him that much, if at all. My sense is Huntsman won't say anything really negative about Obama and that just won't fly in a Republican primary. Not this time around. And if you had to choose between him and Mitt, it's the devil you know (no pun intended) vs. the devil you don't.

He'll create some buzz, the media will jock him and all, I just don't think it's his time. People are going to be surprise when they find how moderate this guy is. I honestly don't think he'll make it out the primaries.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Disclaimer: I know nothing about Huntsman other than what 12th wrote and brief Wiki look (Yes, yes, it's worse than cliff notes but I just wanted the sound bite for now).

I am not sure "moderation" cuts it as a galvanizing electoral call. Obviously, it depends on his charisma - if he can get people excited about him and his positions. Again, I know nothing about the man, is he someone who, beyond good looks, can electrify a crowd with his ideas? Lacking this, i just don't see him overcoming the polarizing arguments likely to occur in the primary (can he get enough support from the solid right to win the nomination?)

We all know just how ineffective the rally cry of "Stay Medium!" is.

Working across the party line is a big selling point for a lot of folks. Obama was medium and he sold himself as such relative to other democratic candidates and when McCain was his general election opponent guess which of the two was closer to the happy medium line? It certainly wasn't McCain. Look, even Bush sold himself as a Compassionate Conservative back in 1999, Clinton sold himself as a moderate too.

Time will tell if Huntsman has or can learn the required charismatic delivery to become president but I wouldn't bet against him in that regard. I would bet against him getting the nomination based on the probability that the GOP base will select Palin/Romney type as their nominee. Obama will easily dispatch Palin/Romney type candidates.

This is what a Republican use to look like:

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Who cares if he did... that doesn't mean he supports him blindly

I asked the question and I didn't say he supported Obama blindly.

But when someone responds to a post and says that essentially I'm a "dumbass", then in another post "not observant" because I made an educated assumption, that I fully believe is correct. Either man up and tell me I'm wrong or say, "I don't want to answer." (or say you were too young to vote). That's all.

But I get SS's point

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I asked the question and I didn't say he supported Obama blindly.

But when someone responds to a post and says that essentially I'm a "dumbass", then in another post "not observant" because I made an educated assumption, that I fully believe is correct. Either man up and tell me I'm wrong or say I don't want to answer (or say you were too young to vote). That's all.

But I get SS's point

I just said you weren't observant on my views. (which I didn't think you are) I apologize for making the remarks about being a dumbass if you are still voting for the GOP. I personally think we should give both the parties the finger and elect something new.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You and JoeRedskins are right. I guess there is some of that tone in my posts and I apologize. It's hard when you see people blinded by stuff that corporate media spews(all types) and they keep doing the same things and voting the same way over and over and over again hoping for different results. I think the two party system is a sham at this point. Neither one of the group is going to fix our country.

No fair though, that comment about Bachman was true though. Come on man, anybody pulling for her or Palin are about as dumb as they come. My parents are Republicans and they even agree....lol

Fair enough. Apology accepted.

As to Palin, I agree - she just sounds like a moron most of the time. That said, those who discount her appeal or who credit it simply to morons attracting morons are,IMO, missing the point. At its essence, the support for Palin and her ilk comes from those disaffected by the intellectual arrogance of many on the left - the concept that "the government" is (or should be) an entity separate from the governed and the people w/in it know what's best for everyone else. I may be way off but, in many ways, just as Bush seemed to denigrate the role of the govt., it seems many on the left see it as the cure-all.

I know their will be vociforous denials and claims of countervailing arrogance from the right. I agree and, in fact, think Palin is the polar opposite of "intellectual" arrogance. To me, she is the "you don't need to be smart or highly educated to provide good govt." candidate. To some degree, she is right. Unfortunately, it comes across more like "We don't want no 'smart' people in government."

For all the moronic statements Palin makes (and there are many), underlying them is the concept government should be of and by the people. This rings true to a lot of people.

Oh yeah, ... And everyone should have guns.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

I just said you weren't observant on my views. (which I didn't think you are) I apologize for making the remarks about being a dumbass if you are still voting for the GOP. I personally think we should give both the parties the finger and elect something new.

We're all good, appreciate it. I do agree with your last sentence, unfortunately the claws of both parties are embedded in too deep.

[JoeRedskin]

Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with the two party system that an informed and attentive electorate couldn't fix.

Oh wait, I think I see the problem ...

[saden1]

You have to know "things" or at the very least have intellectual curiosity to run a country. This isnt an elitist view but a bare minimum requirement to be an effective leader. Btw, we have never had a president "from the people" and of all the presidents we have had the founders were the most elite.

We want people smarter than us in leadership positions. That is the nature of things and preferable.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

You have to know "things" or at the very least have intellectual curiosity to run a country. This isnt an elitist view but a bare minimum requirement to be an effective leader. Btw, we have never had a president "from the people" and of all the presidents we have had the founders were the most elite.

We want people smarter than us in leadership position. That is the nature of things and preferable.

True enough. It's the concept that there is a specific way to get that knowledge or to be smarter (through govt. service, graduate degrees, etc.) that the perceived elitism kicks in.

And yes ... I agree completely with your statement as to the presidents.

Again, it's just my perception as to why Palin has such a dedicated following. Dumb people exist and each candidate has their fair share of them on their side. While much of Palin's support (maybe the vast majority) comes from the "not so deep thinkers" crowd, to suggest that you have to be a moron to find her message attractive is, to me, short sighted - certainly for anyone who wants the Republican nomination.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

True enough. It's the concept that there is a specific way to get that knowledge or to be smarter (through govt. service, graduate degrees, etc.) that the perceived elitism kicks in.

And yes ... I agree completely with your statement as to the presidents.

Again, it's just my perception as to why Palin has such a dedicated following. Dumb people exist and each candidate has their fair share of them on their side. While much of Palin's support (maybe the vast majority) comes from the "not so deep thinkers" crowd, to suggest that you have to be a moron to find her message attractive is, to me, short sighted - certainly for anyone who wants the Republican nomination.

You don't have to be dumb to support Palin and I would argue that the expectation on the left isn't that you go to the best schools in the country but rather you can freely discuss any topic related to governing without guttering the discussion with nonsensical statements. Trump is a perfect example of someone who couldn't possible lead with statements like "you're not gonna raise that ****ing' price!" Frankly such statements and much of what Palin says are deeply insulting much in the same way as someone spitting in your face. I suppose we could strive to be less easily offended much like Palin's supporters.

Speaking of someone who is insulting, Anthony Weiner is another politician who couldn't possibly lead not because of his indiscretions but because of this:

[Beemnseven]

I really wish Gary Johnson would gain some traction. He was voted in for two terms in a state that is 2 to 1 democrat, is pro-choice (through the first trimester), a dedicated spending slasher, wants to end the wars, quit the expensive, tax-consuming "war" on marijuana, and has the business acumen to get the economy rolling again.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I really wish Gary Johnson would gain some traction. He was voted in for two terms in a state that is 2 to 1 democrat, is pro-choice (through the first trimester), a dedicated spending slasher, wants to end the wars, quit the expensive, tax-consuming "war" on marijuana, and has the business acumen to get the economy rolling again.

Gary Johnson Not Invited to New Hampshire GOP Debate ~ New World Radical

Do you really think Johnson would end the wars any faster than Obama? I doubt it...I seriously doubt it. He wouldn't end it any faster than the Generals on the ground would permit it.


Obama says Iraq war is ending, his promise is kept | Reuters

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Gary Johnson Not Invited to New Hampshire GOP Debate ~ New World Radical

Do you really think Johnson would end the wars any faster than Obama? I doubt it...I seriously doubt it. He wouldn't end it any faster than the Generals on the ground would permit it.


Obama says Iraq war is ending, his promise is kept | Reuters

Well, considering the generals work for the president, if he says it's time to leave, then it's time to leave. And yes, considering we can't afford the wars anymore, I'd place my bets on both Johnson and/or Ron Paul getting out as fast as possible.

If that's true about the debate, then it's over for Johnson. And so much for the Tea Party... if they really want to roll back government and slash spending, Johnson and Ron Paul should be gaining momentum. Instead they're salivating over Palin and Bachmann.

[12thMan]

Gary Johnson: ‘Very jaded’ from debate exclusion - Dan Hirschhorn - POLITICO.com