|
On August 16 2011 23:11 zalz wrote:
Why do people on the internet love Ron Paul so much. The guy is insane. Having him for president would be a distaster.
Not as bad as Bachman i suppose because when the people burn down the country it's less scary then when the religious state burns it down.
Still i prefer my state unburned.
Anyway, the republicans are complete idiots if they put anyone other then Romney forward. They can have this election in the bag, why the hell would they risk it with a crazy like Palin, Bachman or Ron Paul.
The only reason anyone would want to see those people put forward is so that Obama can get re-elected without breaking a sweat.
I agree, but they grown ups aren't in charge of the party anymore. They've spent the last generation pandering to the fringe. In doing so, they've ended up with a small, but very motivated base.
This works fine as long as you're just using them for political reasons (i.e. to elect responsible people), but this whole Tea Party thing has made them realize they can run their own candidates and win. In other words, the GOP establishment has spent so much time empowering their far-right base, the base is no longer under their control.
|
Bachmann makes me cry :/ The fact that she has supporters proves that some people in the US are as crazy as the conservative islamists in the Middle-East.
|
It seems like the GOP is just completely crumbling in the lead-up to next year's election.
|
|
|
The problem is the democrats never step up and do anything and then we have 2 god damn choices so pick your pile of shit black or brown.
|
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country.
|
On August 16 2011 23:16 nomel wrote:
My knowledge of U.S. politics and the coming presidential nominations comes from a very limited number of sources. I was under the impression that Romney was considered the strongest candidate while Bachmann is similar to Palin in 2009, but Bachmann perhaps fares better in debates.
It's kind of interesting to follow all of this, but it is difficult to get a realistic picture of all of this as a foreigner.
Romney is the presumed frontrunner. He's leading in virtually all national polls (which means little at this point), has lots of personal wealth and fundraising potential, and it's really his turn. That last bit might sound strange (considering we have a presidential system), but the Republican party has a history of nominating established, long-time party members. At this point, there's no one who fits the bill more than Romney.
Bachman is a lot like Palin, only more articulate and more outspoken about her crazy (likely a good deal smarter too, but...). It's true. Bachmann looks good in debates (at least primary debates where she can play to the base), but her real strength is that she's established herself as consistent figure on the far right. She embodies the Tea Party, and it seems like they'll be playing a huge role in choosing the nominee this cycle.
I'm not sure what you know about our electoral system, but the winner of the Republican primary process will run against Obama in 2012. We're pretty only have 2 party elections, unless something unusual happens.
|
The only one thats not completely insane is Ron Paul, and he has his quirks. But at least hes an honest guy. The vibes i get from the rest of the candidates is that they are basically gangsters.
|
I don't see this primary working out well for the GOP, with the way their base is polarized.
Option 1: They nominate a tea party candidate, who is subsequently completely unelectable in a general election.
Option 2: They nominate a reasonable candidate. Now, if this candidate can ignore the tea party, which results in either losing those voters or even a presendential run from a tea party nutbag, and Obama will clean up. Which means that any possible GOP nominee will have to make concessions to the tea party, probably the VP slot plus a whole lot of policy concessions, and the end result is that the 'reasonable' candidate is so absolutely tainted by association that he becomes unelectable himself.
I can't see Obama losing this, especially with the way he ran his previous campaign. They'll be running on medicare, social security, and as much as people rail against those, the vast majority of Americans does not want to see them cut.
Even someone like Ron Paul would be completely unelectable once Obama's PR team starts spelling out what it means for all the pensioners, people on medicare, if his ideas were truly enacted.
|
On August 16 2011 23:28 Derez wrote:
I don't see this primary working out well for the GOP, with the way their base is polarized.
Option 1: They nominate a tea party candidate, who is subsequently completely unelectable in a general election.
Option 2: They nominate a reasonable candidate. Now, if this candidate can ignore the tea party, which results in either losing those voters or even a presendential run from a tea party nutbag, and Obama will clean up. Which means that any possible GOP nominee will have to make concessions to the tea party, probably the VP slot plus a whole lot of policy concessions, and the end result is that the 'reasonable' candidate is so absolutely tainted by association that he becomes unelectable himself.
I can't see Obama losing this, especially with the way he ran his previous campaign. They'll be running on medicare, social security, and as much as people rail against those, the vast majority of Americans does not want to see them cut.
Yeah that's my feeling too.
Obama seems to have moved to the right in the past year, but the GOP has moved substantially to the right as well. Polls have shown the Republican party is way to the right of the moderates right now. Whoever is nominated is going to have a really tough time in the general because they'll have so much difficulty attracting moderates/independents.
|
On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country.
He supports complete deregulation, including financial regulations, environmental protections, trade restrictions, etc. He also wants to eliminate as many taxes as possible, especially personal and corporate income taxes. He also wants to cut many key government services so the private sector can take over.
Aside from the fact that he's anti-war, I can't think of too many ways he could be more favorable to the top 2%.
|
On August 16 2011 23:27 Equity213 wrote:
The only one thats not completely insane is Ron Paul, and he has his quirks. But at least hes an honest guy. The vibes i get from the rest of the candidates is that they are basically gangsters.
If Australia had someone like Ron Paul I would no joke quit uni and my job to campaign for them. Only problem I have with him is he's anti abortion but he does support states choice so I guess that's alright. Other than that he's ideal imo. He's a Libertarian, for free trade, anti tax for individuals, seeks to decrease government size, believes in separation of church and state. As someone who really values freedom I must say he's rather appealing.
|
On August 16 2011 23:28 Derez wrote:
I don't see this primary working out well for the GOP, with the way their base is polarized.
Option 1: They nominate a tea party candidate, who is subsequently completely unelectable in a general election.
Option 2: They nominate a reasonable candidate. Now, if this candidate can ignore the tea party, which results in either losing those voters or even a presendential run from a tea party nutbag, and Obama will clean up. Which means that any possible GOP nominee will have to make concessions to the tea party, probably the VP slot plus a whole lot of policy concessions, and the end result is that the 'reasonable' candidate is so absolutely tainted by association that he becomes unelectable himself.
I can't see Obama losing this, especially with the way he ran his previous campaign. They'll be running on medicare, social security, and as much as people rail against those, the vast majority of Americans does not want to see them cut.
Even someone like Ron Paul would be completely unelectable once Obama's PR team starts spelling out what it means for all the pensioners, people on medicare, if his ideas were truly enacted.
That's not true. Tea party dormant individuals lie in every location across the country. Most of these "tea party" republicans are just fed up republicans. They're being told that the current agenda is failing and that they have a new plan which recycles old ideas from the Republican party. There's nothing new going on here. With approval ratings pretty much low all around in Washington electing a "tea party" candidate is highly likely.
I've noticed a phenomena going on with Republicans [like myself, my family, my gf's family] either you are fed up with the system and have faith in the tea party to make a change or you're just so fed up with the bullshit of the right that you have pretty much voted Democrat thoroughly in the last 2-4 years. Also I live in a pretty liberal area of the US [Southeast New York] and we went from electing a Democrat in 2006 to kicking him out in 2010 for Nan Hayworth, a tea party endorsed candidate.
Reference: 2010 election
|
Ron Paul, it shouldn't even be a close vote coming from this community.
|
On August 16 2011 23:24 xbankx wrote:
Paul is a Repulican I can stand behind. He is like the only Republican that doesn't work for the top 2% of the country.
Here! It's stuff like this i just don't understand.
People love Ron Paul on the internet but does anyone actually know what he stands for? Not serve the top 2%? What the fuck there isn't a candidate out there with a more pro-2% agenda then Ron Paul.
This frenzy about Ron Paul every election is just silly. People don't know what he is all about, they just think he is some freedom fighter. The guy is very extreme.
|
Some of the republican candidates this year makes George W. Bush look like an amazing president and politician :O
I usually make a point of not being "America-hatin'" like most of my friends, but if Bachmann wins 2012... Then I will be scared.
I mean, that bitch has outdone Palin in crazy and controversy.
Hmmmmm....
Just saying.
|
On August 16 2011 23:25 Omnipresent wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:16 nomel wrote:
My knowledge of U.S. politics and the coming presidential nominations comes from a very limited number of sources. I was under the impression that Romney was considered the strongest candidate while Bachmann is similar to Palin in 2009, but Bachmann perhaps fares better in debates.
It's kind of interesting to follow all of this, but it is difficult to get a realistic picture of all of this as a foreigner. Romney is the presumed frontrunner. He's leading in virtually all national polls (which means little at this point), has lots of personal wealth and fundraising potential, and it's really his turn. That last bit might sound strange (considering we have a presidential system), but the Republican party has a history of nominating established, long-time party members. At this point, there's no one who fits the bill more than Romney. Bachman is a lot like Palin, only more articulate and more outspoken about her crazy (likely a good deal smarter too, but...). It's true. Bachmann looks good in debates (at least primary debates where she can play to the base), but her real strength is that she's established herself as consistent figure on the far right. She embodies the Tea Party, and it seems like they'll be playing a huge role in choosing the nominee this cycle. I'm not sure what you know about our electoral system, but the winner of the Republican primary process will run against Obama in 2012. We're pretty only have 2 party elections, unless something unusual happens.
All right. That's about in line with what I thought. In my mind it was going to be Romney and Obama. I have also been trying to make sense of the Tea Party. I read that Bachmann is considered a teapartyer, but that she's also a Republican. I guess it makes sense, seeing how the Tea Party has no formal organization i.e. a leader (or am I wrong here?). I see the Tea Party as extremely populist and lacking in realistic solutions.
I also read an article on John Huntsmann, who was depicted as a man who could maybe, perhaps, possibly ( ) have some potential, but had not taken the plunge in time. Now it seems too late for him to seriously contend. Seemed like a nice family man though.
My knowledge is based almost purely on the European edition of Time magazine. I don't know which way they generally lean when it comes to U.S. politics, but it feels like they favor the Democratic party. Perhaps it would look different if the Republicans had a stronger line-up.
|
Is there any of them that believe in the IPCC account of anthropogenic climate change or evolution? I'm shocked at the amount of anti-science in the republican party from what I see in youtube videos. BUt I don't know US politics that well which is why I'm asking this question. .
|
On August 16 2011 23:32 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2011 23:28 Derez wrote:
I don't see this primary working out well for the GOP, with the way their base is polarized.
Option 1: They nominate a tea party candidate, who is subsequently completely unelectable in a general election.
Option 2: They nominate a reasonable candidate. Now, if this candidate can ignore the tea party, which results in either losing those voters or even a presendential run from a tea party nutbag, and Obama will clean up. Which means that any possible GOP nominee will have to make concessions to the tea party, probably the VP slot plus a whole lot of policy concessions, and the end result is that the 'reasonable' candidate is so absolutely tainted by association that he becomes unelectable himself.
I can't see Obama losing this, especially with the way he ran his previous campaign. They'll be running on medicare, social security, and as much as people rail against those, the vast majority of Americans does not want to see them cut.
Even someone like Ron Paul would be completely unelectable once Obama's PR team starts spelling out what it means for all the pensioners, people on medicare, if his ideas were truly enacted. That's not true. Tea party dormant individuals lie in every location across the country. Most of these "tea party" republicans are just fed up republicans. They're being told that the current agenda is failing and that they have a new plan which recycles old ideas from the Republican party. There's nothing new going on here. With approval ratings pretty much low all around in Washington electing a "tea party" candidate is highly likely. I've noticed a phenomena going on with Republicans [like myself, my family, my gf's family] either you are fed up with the system and have faith in the tea party to make a change or you're just so fed up with the bullshit of the right that you have pretty much voted Democrat thoroughly in the last 2-4 years. Reference: 2010 election
I keep hearing that Tea Party people are just regular Republicans who are frustrated with the political process, but I just don't see it. There's a lot of crossover between the evangelical conservatives who got Bush elected and the Tea Party, and some really hardcore fiscal conservatives (a minority of Tea Partiers, from where I'm sitting), but these aren't mainstream Republicans by any stretch of the imagination. They're recycling some ideas that have come around since Reagan, but they take them to extremes and refuse to compromise. And then some of the main tenants are simple brand new: never (i mean never) raise any taxes on anyone, abolish basic government organizations like the EPA (ask Nixon about that one...), etc. It's definitely something new.
I live in a pretty red state, and you can tell who the Tea Party people are and who the adults are.
|
I'd say at this point-
Paul > Romney > Cain > Perry > Bachmann
Bachmann's the Republican equivalent of Joe Biden.
I think a Romney-Paul ticket would probably be the best shot against Obama.
It's sad that you can clearly see Obama is an extremely weak President going into re-election, especially if the economy doesn't improve in the next year, yet Republicans can't muster anything that looks like "Oh yeah, Obama's dead in the water if this guy wins the primary."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
