Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Hobby Talk! > Politics
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-22-2011, 10:21 PM
Official 2012 presidential thread

Mitt Romney enter the race and flip flops, Donald Trump thinks Obama isn't American, Palin thinks she has a chance against Obama, Ron Paul will be 77, and Newt Gingrich changes his opinion every time Obama agree with him.


Talk about anything of the upcoming 2012 presidential race.


And if you want to see who share the most views with you in the 2012 presidential race, go to http://www.ontheissues.org/Quiz/Quiz...?quiz=Pres2012 and take the quiz.


I got Feingold, Nader, Clinton, Obama

Last edited by John@$$; 04-23-2011 at 11:01 AM..
  #2  
Old 04-23-2011, 11:00 AM
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/g...for-president/


Slate is calling him “America’s next top Libertarian.” He once said he gave his girlfriend “Atlas Shrugged” as a bottom line guide to understanding him. He wants to legalize weed, opposes the minimum wage, and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And he’s attracted the attention of Paulites (though somebody’d better tell Ron Paul” and “progressive?” Libertarian icon Glenn Greenwald. Meet Gary Johnson, Republican candidate for president.
If you’re a political junkie, you’ve been hearing vague rumblings about former two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson for a minute. Tea Party Libertarians (as opposed to the “hands off my Medicare, ban abortions” corporate Christian rightists who dominate the tea bag set) have been itching for him to run for president for a long time. He’s their ideal candidate if they can’t have Ron Paul (and unlike Paul, he didn’t seek perpetual office after promising to live by term limits.)
It’s not just teabaggies. As Dana Houle recently posted, following a lengthy encomium to Glenn Greenwald in Out Magazine, Greenwald, who is portrayed as a progressive on cable television and in the blogosphere, is a Gary Johnson fan, too, though as Houle points out:
His written output suggests that Greenwald is politically engaged primarily by civil liberties and security state issues. He writes comparatively little about economic quality of life issues like wealth and income disparities, life opportunities and other forms of economic and social justice, including the rights of workers to act in solidarity to form unions and collectively bargain through their labor unions. And now, in learning he’s open to supporting Republican Gary Johnson, we see enough to know it’s almost certain he doesn’t share with liberals and progressives the core belief that the government has a necessary and essential role in taming the excesses of capitalism or of addressing our existential challenges as a species.
According to the 2002 edition of the Almanac of American Politics, as governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson cut taxes on the rich while cutting social services for the poor. He tried to pluck money out of public schools and funnel it in to private school vouchers. He vetoed a minimum wage bill. He signed in to law a late-term abortion ban. He won’t affirm a belief in global warming, and says even if it is happening that the effects are exaggerated and too much money is being wasted on it. And he vetoed a bill that would have continued the collective bargaining rights of public employees. That’s right, without the bluster but apparently to the same intended effect he did the same thing to public employees in New Mexico that Scott Walker did in Wisconsin.
Oh, by the way: Gary Johnson doesn’t support same-sex marriage.
On the subject of same sex marriage, Johnson told the Weekly Standard he doesn’t see a constitutional right to it, but he does think the federal government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches, and in that context he “supports gay unions.” Perhaps that’s what Greenwald approves of, since he apparently believes the federal government shouldn’t be involved in much of anything, except … um … patrolling the border for illegal immigrants (scroll to the end of the Houle post.)
Per the Weekly Standard, who reported that Johnson gave his girlfriend a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” when she asked for one book that would sum him up, he’s also pro abortion rights, but thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned:
In principle, Johnson thinks abortion should be legal in most cases. “I support a woman’s right to choose [abortion] up until viability of the fetus,” he says. Why does viability endow human beings with the right to life? “I don’t personally have a sense that life starts at conception,” Johnson answers intuitively. “I don’t personally have that sense.”
But as a matter of law, Johnson thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. “It should be a states issue to begin with,” he says. “The criteria for a Supreme Court justice would be that those justices rule on the original intent of the constitution. Given that, it’s my understanding that that justice would overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Last December, when Johnson made a tantalizing trip to Iowa, the blog Libertarian Republican raved:
Johnson, who served as governor from 1994 to 2002, supports slashing government spending, including big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He also calls for simplifying and reducing taxes.
Which should really go over well with the eight in 10 Americans who do not support big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
He’s also a fitness enthusiast, which Paul Ryan can tell you the Beltway media loves (wonder if he does P90X. If not he should start — should be worth at least a news cycle.) And Barry McCaffrey calls him “puff daddy.”
Slate has more on Johnson, who could become the thorn in Ron Paul’s side.
Before Ron Paul ran for president in 2007, Johnson was the Great Libertarian Hope. His come-to-Jesus moment on marijuana made him a national figure. Libertarians in the GOP hoped he’d run for their nomination; the Libertarian Party hoped he’d bolt and join their team. But Johnson was dismissive, ruling out a future in politics. “I have effectively pulled the pin on my political career with my stance on drugs,” he said in a 2001 interview with Reasonmagazine. After he left the governor’s mansion, he used the substantial earnings from the sale of his company to travel the world, climb Mount Everest, and ski. When I interviewed Johnson in 2007 (as a reporter for Reason), he asked to be described as a “businessman-slash-adventurer.”
So the Great Libertarian Hope job went to the only applicant: Ron Paul. He was imperfect. The more cosmopolitan members of the movement frowned on Paul’s abortion stance (life begins at conception), his immigration stance (he ran spine-tingling commercials about Mexicans climbing over the border), and his views on international trade. But Paul tapped into an anti-war, anti-state, pro-gold sentiment that few people knew existed. He raised $35 million. He came fourth in the delegate hunt.
Johnson studied the Ron Paul campaign. He hired Paul’s finance director, Jonathan Bydlak. He ran third in CPAC’s straw poll because some Paul supporters made him their first choice, to prop him up. In an interview earlier this year, conducted outside a restaurant in Arlington, Va.—Johnson thought we could save money if we didn’t grab a table—he explained that he wanted to expand the GOP’s base and do what Paul couldn’t quite do last time.
“I just would point out also that he ended up getting 9 percent of the vote, and I’m trying to be astute as to why that was the case,” said Johnson. “I mean, why wasn’t that a higher number? Because the idea would be—speaking hypothetically—the idea would be to win. And he didn’t win. So I try to understand that as well as I possibly can.”
The problem is that Paul still wants to run for president. At last check, his advisers said he was 60/40 on a new presidential run. He’s RSVP’d to the first Republican primary debate, scheduled for May 5 in South Carolina. He has already raised millions of dollars. The last report for Johnson’s PAC, Our America, reported only $205,000 raised, and most of it spent, in the last quarter of 2010.

So does Johnson have a shot at being president?
In a word, no. He’s too liberal on social issues to get through a Republican primary, and unless he flips those positions and becomes a birther, like Donald Trump did, he will remain an obscure figure, with Ron Paul’s policy positions (only more pristine) but not Paul’s name ID.
On the other hand, Johnson could well become the repository for a certain segment of liberals who, like Greenwald, are frustrated with Barack Obama, and looking for a libertarian savior who’s right on the issues they prioritize.
It’s not unusual for a certain segment of the left to become enamored of Libertarians, who tend to be anti-war, to oppose the national security state, and to favor drug legalization and other civil liberties priorities. Think Michael Moore or Bill Maher in 2000. That’s part of the gulf between liberal elites and rank and file liberals/progressives and particularly rank and file Democrats, who tend to care more about issues like poverty, income inequality and jobs. Also, liberal elites are increasingly preaching “a pox on both their parties,” and pulling toward third party candidates, whether Libertarians or Greens.
There are progressive opinion leaders who have a foot in both the “guns” and “butter” camps, but I could definitely see the segment of the liberal elite who detest President Obama for not being pure enough on security issues, and who think the federal government is altogether too powerful — just like tea partiers do — gravitating to Johnson, regardless of his positions on things like Medicare, Social Security and the minimum wage.
  #3  
Old 04-23-2011, 12:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John@$$ View Post
http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/04/g...for-president/


Slate is calling him “America’s next top Libertarian.” He once said he gave his girlfriend “Atlas Shrugged” as a bottom line guide to understanding him. He wants to legalize weed, opposes the minimum wage, and believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. And he’s attracted the attention of Paulites (though somebody’d better tell Ron Paul” and “progressive?” Libertarian icon Glenn Greenwald. Meet Gary Johnson, Republican candidate for president.
If you’re a political junkie, you’ve been hearing vague rumblings about former two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson for a minute. Tea Party Libertarians (as opposed to the “hands off my Medicare, ban abortions” corporate Christian rightists who dominate the tea bag set) have been itching for him to run for president for a long time. He’s their ideal candidate if they can’t have Ron Paul (and unlike Paul, he didn’t seek perpetual office after promising to live by term limits.)
It’s not just teabaggies. As Dana Houle recently posted, following a lengthy encomium to Glenn Greenwald in Out Magazine, Greenwald, who is portrayed as a progressive on cable television and in the blogosphere, is a Gary Johnson fan, too, though as Houle points out:
His written output suggests that Greenwald is politically engaged primarily by civil liberties and security state issues. He writes comparatively little about economic quality of life issues like wealth and income disparities, life opportunities and other forms of economic and social justice, including the rights of workers to act in solidarity to form unions and collectively bargain through their labor unions. And now, in learning he’s open to supporting Republican Gary Johnson, we see enough to know it’s almost certain he doesn’t share with liberals and progressives the core belief that the government has a necessary and essential role in taming the excesses of capitalism or of addressing our existential challenges as a species.
According to the 2002 edition of the Almanac of American Politics, as governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson cut taxes on the rich while cutting social services for the poor. He tried to pluck money out of public schools and funnel it in to private school vouchers. He vetoed a minimum wage bill. He signed in to law a late-term abortion ban. He won’t affirm a belief in global warming, and says even if it is happening that the effects are exaggerated and too much money is being wasted on it. And he vetoed a bill that would have continued the collective bargaining rights of public employees. That’s right, without the bluster but apparently to the same intended effect he did the same thing to public employees in New Mexico that Scott Walker did in Wisconsin.
Oh, by the way: Gary Johnson doesn’t support same-sex marriage.
On the subject of same sex marriage, Johnson told the Weekly Standard he doesn’t see a constitutional right to it, but he does think the federal government should simply get out of the marriage business altogether and leave it to the churches, and in that context he “supports gay unions.” Perhaps that’s what Greenwald approves of, since he apparently believes the federal government shouldn’t be involved in much of anything, except … um … patrolling the border for illegal immigrants (scroll to the end of the Houle post.)
Per the Weekly Standard, who reported that Johnson gave his girlfriend a copy of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” when she asked for one book that would sum him up, he’s also pro abortion rights, but thinks Roe v Wade should be overturned:
In principle, Johnson thinks abortion should be legal in most cases. “I support a woman’s right to choose [abortion] up until viability of the fetus,” he says. Why does viability endow human beings with the right to life? “I don’t personally have a sense that life starts at conception,” Johnson answers intuitively. “I don’t personally have that sense.”
But as a matter of law, Johnson thinks Roe v. Wade should be overturned. “It should be a states issue to begin with,” he says. “The criteria for a Supreme Court justice would be that those justices rule on the original intent of the constitution. Given that, it’s my understanding that that justice would overturn Roe v. Wade.”
Last December, when Johnson made a tantalizing trip to Iowa, the blog Libertarian Republican raved:
Johnson, who served as governor from 1994 to 2002, supports slashing government spending, including big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. He also calls for simplifying and reducing taxes.
Which should really go over well with the eight in 10 Americans who do not support big cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
He’s also a fitness enthusiast, which Paul Ryan can tell you the Beltway media loves (wonder if he does P90X. If not he should start — should be worth at least a news cycle.) And Barry McCaffrey calls him “puff daddy.”
Slate has more on Johnson, who could become the thorn in Ron Paul’s side.
Before Ron Paul ran for president in 2007, Johnson was the Great Libertarian Hope. His come-to-Jesus moment on marijuana made him a national figure. Libertarians in the GOP hoped he’d run for their nomination; the Libertarian Party hoped he’d bolt and join their team. But Johnson was dismissive, ruling out a future in politics. “I have effectively pulled the pin on my political career with my stance on drugs,” he said in a 2001 interview with Reasonmagazine. After he left the governor’s mansion, he used the substantial earnings from the sale of his company to travel the world, climb Mount Everest, and ski. When I interviewed Johnson in 2007 (as a reporter for Reason), he asked to be described as a “businessman-slash-adventurer.”
So the Great Libertarian Hope job went to the only applicant: Ron Paul. He was imperfect. The more cosmopolitan members of the movement frowned on Paul’s abortion stance (life begins at conception), his immigration stance (he ran spine-tingling commercials about Mexicans climbing over the border), and his views on international trade. But Paul tapped into an anti-war, anti-state, pro-gold sentiment that few people knew existed. He raised $35 million. He came fourth in the delegate hunt.
Johnson studied the Ron Paul campaign. He hired Paul’s finance director, Jonathan Bydlak. He ran third in CPAC’s straw poll because some Paul supporters made him their first choice, to prop him up. In an interview earlier this year, conducted outside a restaurant in Arlington, Va.—Johnson thought we could save money if we didn’t grab a table—he explained that he wanted to expand the GOP’s base and do what Paul couldn’t quite do last time.
“I just would point out also that he ended up getting 9 percent of the vote, and I’m trying to be astute as to why that was the case,” said Johnson. “I mean, why wasn’t that a higher number? Because the idea would be—speaking hypothetically—the idea would be to win. And he didn’t win. So I try to understand that as well as I possibly can.”
The problem is that Paul still wants to run for president. At last check, his advisers said he was 60/40 on a new presidential run. He’s RSVP’d to the first Republican primary debate, scheduled for May 5 in South Carolina. He has already raised millions of dollars. The last report for Johnson’s PAC, Our America, reported only $205,000 raised, and most of it spent, in the last quarter of 2010.

So does Johnson have a shot at being president?
In a word, no. He’s too liberal on social issues to get through a Republican primary, and unless he flips those positions and becomes a birther, like Donald Trump did, he will remain an obscure figure, with Ron Paul’s policy positions (only more pristine) but not Paul’s name ID.
On the other hand, Johnson could well become the repository for a certain segment of liberals who, like Greenwald, are frustrated with Barack Obama, and looking for a libertarian savior who’s right on the issues they prioritize.
It’s not unusual for a certain segment of the left to become enamored of Libertarians, who tend to be anti-war, to oppose the national security state, and to favor drug legalization and other civil liberties priorities. Think Michael Moore or Bill Maher in 2000. That’s part of the gulf between liberal elites and rank and file liberals/progressives and particularly rank and file Democrats, who tend to care more about issues like poverty, income inequality and jobs. Also, liberal elites are increasingly preaching “a pox on both their parties,” and pulling toward third party candidates, whether Libertarians or Greens.
There are progressive opinion leaders who have a foot in both the “guns” and “butter” camps, but I could definitely see the segment of the liberal elite who detest President Obama for not being pure enough on security issues, and who think the federal government is altogether too powerful — just like tea partiers do — gravitating to Johnson, regardless of his positions on things like Medicare, Social Security and the minimum wage.
Shorter Joy Reid: Only liberal "elites" and Tea Partiers who don't care about the working class don't like Obama.

Your quiz is also pretty problematic because its voting record part takes almost nothing into account from the last few years and so candidates' positions are based on what they've said rather than, and even when in direct contradiction with, what they've done.

As for 2012, I just sure hope no one wins.
  #4  
Old 04-23-2011, 12:14 PM
Whoever wins, America loses. Hey whoever wins can run on an anti war campaign and then in his first day in office invade a third world country! Lets set some records here! 4 wars at once? Lets go for 10!
  #5  
Old 04-23-2011, 12:18 PM
Only two things concern me: major herbage and bodacious babes.

https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2214966228

Small, but loyal following. We are shooting for a 2016 move.
  #6  
Old 04-23-2011, 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by QUENTIN View Post
Shorter Joy Reid: Only liberal "elites" and Tea Partiers who don't care about the working class don't like Obama.

Your quiz is also pretty problematic because its voting record part takes almost nothing into account from the last few years and so candidates' positions are based on what they've said rather than, and even when in direct contradiction with, what they've done.

As for 2012, I just sure hope no one wins.
I don't agree with the Joy Reid statement that only liberal "elites" and Tea Partiers are the only people who don't like Obama. Progressives, true socialists, communists,Paleoconservatives, libertarians, and other groups can't stand what Obama is doing as president.


The site has a clear libertarian bias with it's Nolan Chart and has put Rahm Emanuel and Anthony Weiner in the hard core liberal bracket. The site is full of quotes that will show some people switch their views all the time. Like a Donald Trump or Flip Romney for say, were both moderate Republicans who since running for the white house have turn more conservative.


I will vote third party or just write in a candidate. This is the worst year for both of the evil corrupt parties.
  #7  
Old 05-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Any watchers of Fox South Carolina debate? Thoughts on the candidates? Who to watch and who to not take seriously?
  #8  
Old 05-08-2011, 12:40 PM
I am voting for Ron Paul even if he loses the Republican nomination. Obama has been a failure, and nobody else has any good ideas. At least Paul has had a plan on how to get things back on track compared to everyone bickering back and forth about why something is wrong instead of working together to fix the problems. I have read Paul's books, and he makes a lot of excellent points.

We do need a candidate that steps up and says that is it the American people who must choose their path in life, not corporations or the government. We also could use the opportunity to get rid of a lot of those in office who do not want to work together, but rather want to be one sided in their voting.

Last edited by shoe1985; 05-08-2011 at 12:45 PM..
  #9  
Old 05-08-2011, 03:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe1985 View Post
I am voting for Ron Paul even if he loses the Republican nomination. Obama has been a failure, and nobody else has any good ideas. At least Paul has had a plan on how to get things back on track compared to everyone bickering back and forth about why something is wrong instead of working together to fix the problems. I have read Paul's books, and he makes a lot of excellent points.

We do need a candidate that steps up and says that is it the American people who must choose their path in life, not corporations or the government. We also could use the opportunity to get rid of a lot of those in office who do not want to work together, but rather want to be one sided in their voting.
Gary Johnson has similar views to Paul beyond their social views, which isn't the big plan for Johnson 2012 campaign. The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that most of his ideas are just damaging to a recession like the one were having right now. I know anti-welfare people think it's time to tell them to stop being lazy and work hard, where if Paul abolish welfare system, the country will be heading to a depression. To see why, look at 1880's and 1920's to see why libertarianism such as this won't work and ever work in the real world. Ron Paul would be in war with 95% of congress trying to do anything if he was president now and in the future. Paul has the chance to become like Barry Goldwater who help libertarianism/conservative policy to become more dominant ideology in American politics, even though he lose BIG to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. Paul could help more younger people get into conservative with the way Obama been to most people and the fact he's not neo-con or religious right freak, so that will help Paul influence in the long run.


I wish a progressive like Anthony Weiner could take the chance and face Obama in the Democrat primary but that will never happen for now.

Last edited by John@$$; 05-08-2011 at 06:01 PM..
  #10  
Old 05-08-2011, 05:43 PM
I'm rootin' for this guy. He seems to have a lot of good ideas. And he's totally not racist at all.
  #11  
Old 05-09-2011, 11:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John@$$ View Post
Gary Johnson has similar views to Paul beyond their social views, which isn't the big plan for Johnson 2012 campaign. The biggest problem with Ron Paul is that most of his ideas are just damaging to a recession like the one were having right now. I know anti-welfare people think it's time to tell them to stop being lazy and work hard, where if Paul abolish welfare system, the country will be heading to a depression. To see why, look at 1880's and 1920's to see why libertarianism such as this won't work and ever work in the real world. Ron Paul would be in war with 95% of congress trying to do anything if he was president now and in the future. Paul has the chance to become like Barry Goldwater who help libertarianism/conservative policy to become more dominant ideology in American politics, even though he lose BIG to Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1964. Paul could help more younger people get into conservative with the way Obama been to most people and the fact he's not neo-con or religious right freak, so that will help Paul influence in the long run.


I wish a progressive like Anthony Weiner could take the chance and face Obama in the Democrat primary but that will never happen for now.
I think another issue with Paul is his age, to go along with what you said. He is close to 80.

Paul would have been the best person for the job in 08 because we had to basically rebuild anyways, so, lets rebuild the right way.

I am anti-welfare in the sense that I believe people should at least do something to earn their welfare money. Far too many people sit home collecting a check and do nothing. Have these people pick trash, volunteer at their local park, or something else.

Weiner is far too left, and his chance of winning is slim to none, probably close to none.

It is interesting that during 07, we had everyone running, now, we have nobody running, or not in the race yet. I cannot blame anyone to run because the way things are, they are too bad.
  #12  
Old 05-09-2011, 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe1985 View Post
I think another issue with Paul is his age, to go along with what you said. He is close to 80.

Paul would have been the best person for the job in 08 because we had to basically rebuild anyways, so, lets rebuild the right way.

I am anti-welfare in the sense that I believe people should at least do something to earn their welfare money. Far too many people sit home collecting a check and do nothing. Have these people pick trash, volunteer at their local park, or something else.

Weiner is far too left, and his chance of winning is slim to none, probably close to none.

It is interesting that during 07, we had everyone running, now, we have nobody running, or not in the race yet. I cannot blame anyone to run because the way things are, they are too bad.

Right about Paul age. We need people who don't have chance of dying at any time, such as Ron Paul. If he's the nomination, you might as well call the GOP "old white man" party and makes Reagan, Dole, and McCain age look young guns.

I can see where your going with welfare but I disagree with what you said, though some welfare people are just like that.

Weiner chance is just like Paul but I like the guy though.

Romney, Johnson, Paul, T-Paw, and few others running for president already. And of course Obama is running for reelection in 2012. It's still early and we might have some twists in this election.


And here a gem I found on another site that Cain was CEO for.


http://youtu.be/8yV3_IymkJg

Last edited by John@$$; 05-09-2011 at 02:42 PM..
  #13  
Old 05-09-2011, 08:15 PM
I don't know... I think the Republican's "Fuck the Poor/Fellate the Rich" strategy just might win the hearts and minds of all Americans.


Quote:
Originally Posted by shoe1985 View Post
It is interesting that during 07, we had everyone running, now, we have nobody running, or not in the race yet. I cannot blame anyone to run because the way things are, they are too bad.
No one wants to give up their job at Fox in order to run. That's pretty much were all the contenders work right now (except Mitt, who will probably end up as the nominee anyway).
  #14  
Old 05-09-2011, 10:08 PM
Wait just one second here...

I've now checked with JoBlo, the Complex Media Network, the Federal Election Commission, and the House of Representatives and get this--

There's nothing "Official" about this thread at all!

  #15  
Old 05-10-2011, 06:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
I don't know... I think the Republican's "Fuck the Poor/Fellate the Rich" strategy just might win the hearts and minds of all Americans.


Youth, blacks, women, elderly, Hispanic, poor, non-rich people, yeah that sounds like wining the hearts of all American. Look at which party the above mention vote for.
  #16  
Old 05-10-2011, 09:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John@$$ View Post
Youth, blacks, women, elderly, Hispanic, poor, non-rich people, yeah that sounds like wining the hearts of all American. Look at which party the above mention vote for.
Huh? Are you implying all those people only vote Democrat?
  #17  
Old 05-11-2011, 05:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
Huh? Are you implying all those people only vote Democrat?
No, just like not all rich white men vote Republican. I was just choosing big demographics that would have trouble with the message that being sent from the GOP.
  #18  
Old 05-12-2011, 12:22 AM
It is funny how the tide turns 180 degrees from the 08' election. This time out the Republicans will believe their economic strategy will be their ticket, while Obama will using homeland security as his.
  #19  
Old 05-12-2011, 10:56 AM
Could Jon Huntsman or Mitch Daniels beat Obama?
  #20  
Old 05-14-2011, 08:06 PM
I hate to sound all conspiracy theory and everything, but I think the only people that have a real impact on who gets chosen for Republican primary is Fox News. I mean what, like 3/4ths of the people running have jobs/take money from Fox.
  #21  
Old 05-15-2011, 03:25 PM
As of right now 5/15/11 the Republican Party in truth, offers ZERO competition for 2012's Presidential Election. Mike Pence = OUT John Thune = OUT Mike Huckabee = OUT Sarah Palin = WILL NOT RUN,REASON:The $$$ is flowing in too easy via speeches etc. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (both Mormon)= WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED by the parties Christian Right,period. Newt Gingrich = IN only for the fun of primary debates..He's smart enough to know he has NO chance of becoming the Party Nominee. Haley Barbour = OUT Donald Trump = did the little foul mouth routine awhile back in Vegas,as cover for party conservatives to reject him. (Trump loves his T.V. success too much to give it up). Michele Bachmann = garners NO support/interest from Corp. America and the Billionaire class. John Bolton and Rick Santorum = WHY BOTHER wasting time and $ guys? Mitch Daniels = OUT (IMO).. Ron Paul = IN, BUT Conservative and Moderate Republicans know that Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican in order to win elections only. Paul WILL NEVER BE NOMINATED BY THE GOP AS THEIR CANDIDATE VS. OBAMA. Herman Cain = IN,the fact he is a "minority candidate" has already marginalized him within the GOP.Herman Cain like Democrats Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson,will likewise be treated strictly as novelty by Party elites,hence FORGET IT FELLA. THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WHEN THIS CONFUSED MESS IS ALL OVER WITH WILL BE- MEGA SNOOZER-----> Tim Pawlenty = OBAMA REELECTED IN '12 (that a good thing U think? who knows at this point?)

Last edited by Dr.Frankenstein; 05-16-2011 at 09:23 AM..
  #22  
Old 05-15-2011, 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Frankenstein View Post
As of right now 5/15/11 the Republican Party in truth, offer ZERO competition for 2012's Presidential Election. Mike Enzi = OUT John Thune = OUT Mike Huckabee = OUT Sarah Palin = WILL NOT RUN,REASON:The $$$ is flowing in too easy via speeches etc. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (both Mormon)= WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED by the parties Christian Religious Right,period. Newt Gingrich = IN only for the fun of primary debates..He's smart enough to know he has NO chance of becoming the Party Nominee. Haley Barbour = OUT Donald Trump = did the little foul mouth routine awhile back in Vegas,as cover for party conservatives to reject him. (Trump loves his T.V. success too much to give it up). Michele Bachmann = NO support at all from Corp. America and the Billionaire class. John Bolton and Rick Santorum = WHY BOTHER wasting time and $ guys? Mitch Daniels = OUT (IMO).. Ron Paul = IN BUT!Conservative and Moderate Republican's know that Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican in order to win elections only. Paul WILL NEVER BE NOMINATED BY THE GOP AS THEIR CANDIDATE VS. OBAMA. Herman Cain = the fact he is a "minority candidate" has already marginalized him within the GOP,Cain will be treated strictly as a novelty by the Party elite,hence FORGET IT FELLA. THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WHEN THIS CONFUSED MESS IS ALL OVER WITH WILL BE- MEGA SNOOZER-----> Tim Pawlenty = OBAMA REELECTED IN '12 (that a good thing U think? who knows at this point?)
Yeah, that seems to be the dirty little secret about 2012 that no media wants to articulate. Currently the Republicans are great at the politics of being an opposition party but don't really have an individual that can run for them. You should also throw in there that Obama has a billion dollar war chest stashed away; so even if they had a great nominee that would still be a mountain to climb.
  #23  
Old 05-15-2011, 04:08 PM
Fuck it all.



Dr.Frankenstein for president!
  #24  
Old 05-15-2011, 04:51 PM
Rick Santorum is the most amusing candidate to emerge in this race. He is a well-known gaff factory who was absolutely trounced in his last bid for office.
  #25  
Old 05-16-2011, 09:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John@$$ View Post
Fuck it all.



Dr.Frankenstein for president!
Thx, but I prefer Dictator!
  #26  
Old 05-16-2011, 03:47 PM
Huckabee is not running and Mitt Romney just looks like hes half-assing it.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to climb the huge uphill battle that will be this election. I think most Republicans are betting their money on 2016.
  #27  
Old 05-16-2011, 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jolanar View Post
Huckabee is not running and Mitt Romney just looks like hes half-assing it.

I'm pretty sure nobody wants to climb the huge uphill battle that will be this election. I think most Republicans are betting their money on 2016.
Yeah. It's kinda looking like nobody really wants to give it a go. Even Newt is phoning it in. So far it's like an entire field of Fred Thompsons. In the end, it will probably be some kind Bob Dole style sacrificial lamb that gets the nod.
  #28  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:22 AM
.

Last edited by John@$$; 07-16-2012 at 01:52 PM..
  #29  
Old 05-19-2011, 09:01 PM
Obama is going to win this by default.

The only way to overcome an incumbent president is with a strong, charismatic candidate and/or the presence of a third party that siphons a large number of votes away from the incumbent. I just don't see either of those two things arising in the next year at the rate things are going.
  #30  
Old 05-29-2011, 05:56 PM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...=hp:mainpromo1


And fudgeafucka Palin is hanging on whatever chance she gets from 2012.
  #31  
Old 05-29-2011, 08:55 PM
the longer it takes for republicans to choose a candidate the better chances they have to take office. they'll get someone charismatic and they build him/her up so much that it will be election day before the public will have a chance to take a look at their political history and opinions. i have a feeling this is their strategy.
  #32  
Old 07-13-2011, 09:30 AM
I'm pretty sure Romney's strategy at this point is simply to "not say stupid shit" which is going to be death of basically all his competition.
  #33  
Old 07-13-2011, 11:07 AM
Rudy might enter the race. I'm gussing he's will battle Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich for irrelevant Republican that had their time but won't get the nomination.


Oh and the 10 anniversary of 9/11...
  #34  
Old 07-23-2011, 03:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat View Post
Rick Santorum is the most amusing candidate to emerge in this race. He is a well-known gaff factory who was absolutely trounced in his last bid for office.
Agree. Bachmann and Perry are close to scaring me more then Santorum. Or Palin.
  #35  
Old 08-24-2011, 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.Frankenstein View Post
As of right now 5/15/11 the Republican Party in truth, offers ZERO competition for 2012's Presidential Election. Mike Pence = OUT John Thune = OUT Mike Huckabee = OUT Sarah Palin = WILL NOT RUN,REASON:The $$$ is flowing in too easy via speeches etc. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman (both Mormon)= WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED by the parties Christian Right,period. Newt Gingrich = IN only for the fun of primary debates..He's smart enough to know he has NO chance of becoming the Party Nominee. Haley Barbour = OUT Donald Trump = did the little foul mouth routine awhile back in Vegas,as cover for party conservatives to reject him. (Trump loves his T.V. success too much to give it up). Michele Bachmann = garners NO support/interest from Corp. America and the Billionaire class. John Bolton and Rick Santorum = WHY BOTHER wasting time and $ guys? Mitch Daniels = OUT (IMO).. Ron Paul = IN, BUT Conservative and Moderate Republicans know that Paul is a Libertarian masquerading as a Republican in order to win elections only. Paul WILL NEVER BE NOMINATED BY THE GOP AS THEIR CANDIDATE VS. OBAMA. Herman Cain = IN,the fact he is a "minority candidate" has already marginalized him within the GOP.Herman Cain like Democrats Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson,will likewise be treated strictly as novelty by Party elites,hence FORGET IT FELLA. THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEE WHEN THIS CONFUSED MESS IS ALL OVER WITH WILL BE- MEGA SNOOZER-----> Tim Pawlenty = OBAMA REELECTED IN '12 (that a good thing U think? who knows at this point?)
WELL,seeing Pawlenty has bailed out after a poor showing in the "Iowa Straw Poll" weeks ago, my best guess is that Gov. of Texas Rick Perry is now a shoo-in (for several reasons) as the Republican Party nominee by end of the primary process. IMO = a Republican victory over President Obama in 2012... GOOD? BAD? I don't think it will matter by late 2012 the nations $$$ decline is too far advanced for any President and or political party to stop. Just my gut feeling. ++++++++ I'm SOUR on both major political parties at this point.

Last edited by Dr.Frankenstein; 08-24-2011 at 02:28 PM..
  #36  
Old 08-24-2011, 06:01 PM
Well, here's a shocker:

Rick Perry: Evolution A Theory That's Out There

First Posted: 8/18/11 05:06 PM ET Updated: 8/19/11 10:22 AM ET


During a stop in New Hampshire on Thursday, Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry raised skepticism about the theory of evolution.

"How old do I think the earth is? You know what, I don't have any idea," said the Texas governor when asked about his position on the issue by a woman and her son. "I know it's pretty old so it goes back a long long way. I'm not sure anybody actually knows completely and absolutely how long, how old the earth is."

Perry regarded evolution as "a theory that's out there" and one that's "got some gaps in it." He added that in the Lone Star State both creationism and evolution are taught to students in public schools. He explained, "I figure you're smart enough to figure out which one is right."

The Texas Tribune reports that some in Texas dispute the governor's claim about whether creationism is taught in the classroom in the state. The Tribune notes:

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public schools was unconstitutional. In the case Edwards v. Aguillard, the court ruled that teaching creationism in Louisiana public schools was the equivalent of teaching religion and violated the Constitution because it advanced a particular religion.


Earlier this summer, GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann expressed doubt about the theory of evolution.

"I support intelligent design," she said after speaking at this year's Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."

In 2006, Bachmann suggested that some within the scientific community discredit the theory of evolution. "There are hundreds and hundreds of scientists, many of them holding Nobel Prizes, who believe in intelligent design," she said.

Meanwhile, GOP presidential contender Jon Huntsman signaled a different stance on the issue on Thursday. In a tweet he wrote, "To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."


Link with video
  #37  
Old 08-26-2011, 01:54 PM
Rick Perry ugh. What the fuck has happen to the Republican party. It's been in the drain since Ronald Raygun took office and turn the party regressively. In developed parts of the world, the Tea Party would only be allowed in fringe parties such as the UKIP. The Dems may be corrupt and not getting shit done but at least they have a fucking heart like Badbird said in the "the worst party out of the two" thread. The Republicans only care about screwing the lesbians/homosexuals/transgender, the working class, the poor, the disabled, teachers, atheists/agnostic/non religious/liberal religions and the unions. They want to think privatization is the solution to every problem to the world. The good/great/descent Republicans such as Mark Hatfield and Dwight Eisenhower are vanished from current state of the Republicans that has allowed names such as Jim Inhofe and Pat Robinson to become members of the party. Not saying the GOP was perfect back in the Eisenhower days when we had Joe "Red Scale" McCarthy trying to bring his lies and clams in the senate, since he thought Hollywood was control by Soviet Union spies that were aiming for a communist revolution. Fuck, Tricky Dick is a socialist compare to Barack Obama who the party accuse of being a "islamist socialist who hates America".


The election is one that will have the worst Republican field of candidates that makes 1996 field memorable by comparison.
  #38  
Old 08-26-2011, 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John@$$ View Post
The Dems may be corrupt and not getting shit done but at least they have a fucking heart like Badbird said in the "the worst party out of the two" thread.

















Yes, such fucking heart they have.
  #39  
Old 08-26-2011, 11:28 PM
Total buzzkill! I was really getting my election high on too. Way to go!
  #40  
Old 08-29-2011, 05:55 PM
Something I was just thinking about...

God help Ralph Nader if he decides to run next year. You thought Democrats lost their shit in 2004? I don't even want to imagine the fury he'll face from the liberal intelligentsia if he makes the announcement in February, especially if Rick Perry continues to do as well in the polls as he's been doing. They might not be happy with Obama right now, but they hate even the slightest challenge to America's two-party dictatorship even more.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump