General Republican Party/Primary Discussion

[danilo]

I was wondering if anyone else(I'm sure there's tons of you) who are interested in the topic. Whether you want to talk about the specific candidates, predictions, or any other things related to the Republican primary, I'm interested to hear about it.

For those who may not know, the Republican Primary is basically a series of elections to see who will represent the Republican Party in 2012. Looking forward to an excellent discussion!

Edit*: i'm basically wondering what candidates you guys like and dislike. Obviously, i want to know why you disloke or like a specific candidate. If you dont like any of the candidates, feel free to post why u you dislike all of thre candidate

 

[tennisace]

Looking forward to an excellent discussion!

You've come to the wrong 4m sir.

Anywho, as an independant (read: democrat) its pretty fun to watch all the candidates shoot themselves in the foot except Ron Paul. If Paul wasn't so much of a fundie I would seriously consider voting for him because I like a lot of what he has to say on personal liberties. Perry is going to drop out after getting crushed in NH, Huntsman is in the race still for some reason, and Santorum's past will eventually catch up to him. We're going to be left with Romney vs Paul and thats when I'm really going to start paying attention.

 

[Myzozoa]

How mad are you going to be when Romney loses to Obama?

Anyway, the Republicans have done pretty well with their time in Congress. The way they managed to manufacture multiple crises, and then managed to show the strength of their Populist conviction by ensuring that rich people don't get taxed, I thought it was inspiring.

They've managed to ensure that they get youth votes by having a majority in congress pass such strong bills as SOPA and NDAA, two bills clearly targeting at our nations most pressing problem: terrorism. What? You thought it was the economy? lol. Osama's dead you say? Thats what they want you to think.

As we have seen Obama doesn't stand a chance, Republicans are looking to field the strongest opposition Candidate since John Kerry, never mind that he lost.

 

[danilo]

Ron paul is such a thug. When i first heard about him, i was kind of impressed. It seemed like he was just a regular dude with regular beliefs. When i first heard tht he wasnt thks crazy pro-israel/close minded figure like many of the other republicans. Then, i did a tiny bit of research. The dude is out of his damn mind. As soon as i read tht he wanted to legalize some types of drugs, i flipped. There's not really a candidate tht i could really support. Oh, and tennisace, which 4m should this be located inn.

Forgive any typos i make as i am typing this on a nook.

 

[vonFiedler]

It seemed like he was just a regular dude with regular beliefs.

he wanted to legalize some types of drugs

I don't see the incongruity here.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Could you support a close minded candidate?

 

[Umbreon Dan]

when you make a discussion thread, try to start the discussion with the first post. when you begin the thread with "talk about $x here!" you don't really give us much to go on.

anyway, ron paul is a little less insane than the rest (his ideas for drugs are some of his better ones) but he's still a republican in far too many ways to be a serious world leader. i wish republican candidates would stop dropping out. they are all just so delicious

 

[danilo]

I don't see the incongruity here.

Sorry i didnt go into a ton of detail. Aroundnovember of 2011, Ron Paul said tht he would like it if drugs like heroin and cocaine were legalized. That's not a regular guy kind of thing to say.

@Hipmonlee, i couldnt really support a closed minded candidate simply because that's not the atrribute of a good leader.

@Dan, ill change my first post on this thread. Whilr i disagree with the fact that you believe tht Ron Paul's stand on drugs is one of his better stands, i do agree with you in saying tht these candidates are quite interesting

 

[vonFiedler]

The war on drugs is no better than the war on terror. It's debatably worse, given that it's getting Americans killed on our own soil, and plugging up the legal system with countless individuals just for possession. This cannot all be new to you.

 

[danilo]

So legalizing drugs is the way to solve the problem?

 

[vonFiedler]

Read up on the Prohibition.

 

[evan]

I had an actually in depth and long post here but i accidentally backspaced out of it (UGH).

Here is an abbreviated version:

1) Take this thread seriously. I will actually be monitoring it for trolling/flaming. Take note jokesters and hyper-partisans.

2) State of the GOP in my opinion: Poor. Partly due to the media and partly due to moneyed interests within the ranks of the party, the real issues are being obfuscated in favor of "red meat" and willful ignorance. It is incredibly disheartening to me to see Rick Santorum whose only real claim to fame is hating the gays more than any other candidate surging in the primaries while an actually thoughtful and intelligent candidate like Jon Huntsman is lost in the wilderness. The GOP (and all of politics in general) has become so hyper-partisan that Jon Huntsman was immediately disqualified for serving as ambassador to China under the Obama administration despite his previous diplomatic work under the Reagan and Bush Sr administrations. The Big Tent Party is shrinking and zipping up the doors.

3) Candidatese (in brief):

a. Romney: Will win the nomination (seriously stop kidding yourselves everyone else's supporters). Biggest problem is that he's untrustworthy. I am a person who believes you should be able to change your mind when presented with new evidence, but with Romney the impression is that he changes his mind when presented with new poll numbers. It's hard to take anything he says seriously when you're questioning his motives. Secondly, Bain Capital. It'll hurt him because it's just SO EASY to spin in a negative way, but I think that it'll just be a wash in the end. Lastly, Romney will inevitably win the nomination but not the hearts of the Republican base. And he will find it impossible to attack Obama on the issue that the base cares most about: Health Care Reform. Because of his support of an individual mandate in MA (remember that this was a Republican response to "Hillarycare" back in the 90s originally!), he won't find any traction against Obama.

b. Ron Paul: I respect Ron Paul. I really do. The man has convictions and he sticks to them. That being said, his convictions are way out to the right of what anyone in America is ready for now or ever will be. We are by nature a conservative nation. Not as far as political beliefs but in our fear of change. Obama campaigned on "change," true. but Ron Paul is campaigning on "CHANGE!!!!!!" His vision of America is just too far removed from the mainstream to receive more than his diehard base of supporters.

c. Rick Santorum: seriously get fundamentalist christian religion OUT of my GOP. Rick Santorum's only calling card is he hates the gays more than anyone else. Outside of thinking homosexuality is akin to bestiality this guy has nothing interesting to say and no ideas worth talking about.

d. Newt Gingrich: I'm not sure why anyone thought he would ever be a serious challenge. WAY too much baggage to make an impact. Ignoring the personal baggage, we have Newt to blame for much of the partisanship that's caused Congress to have such terrible approval ratings. It was under the Gingrich house that we began seeing party line votes become the norm and bipartisanship turn into a four letter word. Hell, this is the man who attempted to impeach President Clinton for lying about an affair... While lying about an affair. Not to mention his work after leaving the House not lobbying for Freddie Mac and his obsession with advancing the "Gingrich" brand.

e. Rick Perry: Oh he's still in? I'll be honest I haven't followed him all that much outside of the obvious laughs. It's possible that he could be an entirely competent Governor but he's a terrible presidential candidate. Not to mention the fact that he is gunning for the same fundie vote that Santorum is which is just like oil to my water.

f. Jon Huntsman: Oh Gov. Huntsman. How I wish things had gone better for you. Look at you. Moderate, dedicated to the country, one of the most conservative governors in the country with one of the best track records on job creation. Well versed on one of our most important foreign rivals (China). But no. They would rather have Romney the cheap copy of you instead. All because you worked for Obama and believe in evolution and climate change. Also you have great hair.

4) Other stuff went here but I've forgotten.

5) War on Drugs is an entirely separate topic with a whole host of issues to discuss. Worthy of another thread but I am not so certain I will be able to dedicate my time to that one as well since they usually just come down to "I like to smoke pot. Let me smoke pot and the economy will be saved."

6) GOP stands for "Grand Old Party" and is another name for the Republican Party. You're thinking of the series of primaries being held in these first months of 2012.

 

[MrIndigo]

I always thought GOP stood for God's Own Party.


With the exception of Cain and Bachmann, I like various aspects of the policy of each of the candidates... except they all have some nutcase eccentricities or blatant falsehoods as part of their policy platform, rendering them unelectable.

So ultimately, I don't think it really matters. None of the candidates seem like they can legitimately win against the Democrats to me.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Dont worry evan, after Santorum blows it, it will be Huntsman's turn to be the main rival for Romney. He might have timed it perfectly!

My point Sir, was basically that. Yeah Ron Paul supports drug legalization, but on the other hand, Romney is a liar, Gingrich is a liar, Santorum is a bigot, Perry is a liar and a bigot, and Huntsman I dont know the first thing about. Even if you strongly oppose drug legalization, it might still be the lesser of all of these evils.

Obama is a liar too, so it's not like you can fall back to a party switch..

 

[Alan]

I don't really know who Santorum or Huntsman are. Except I heard that Santorum wants to ban porn from the internet, so he lost my vote after I read that article. (It's somewhere on Yahoo! or if you google "Santorum Anti-Porn" I'm sure you'll get some hits).

I don't really know Mitt Romney and his ideas from a hole in the ground except that he is famous for, as my ultra-conservative, FOX News watching parents put it, "creating his own version of 'Obama-care' in NH". So I guess I don't like him for that. (I'm not crazy about "Obama-care" as it were because I don't really think I should HAVE to buy health insurance when I'm young and healthy and don't really need it, but that's a different topic). Probably gonna get the nomination.

I like Ron Paul and if I was a voting citizen, I would vote for Ron Paul. He's a libertarian and I'm a libertarian, so we kind of see eye to eye. I'm in favor of his want to legalise drugs and pretty much let everything happen as it were, in regards to the market. He won't get the nomination though because a) people like Romney more for whatever reason and b) hardcore, God-fearing, black-hating, gun-owning republicans are scared of him and his desire to legalise drugs, among other things.

I don't know why Rick Perry is still in the race. Probably because he doesn't scared to say he's a Christian. Good on ya. Pretty much a racist from Texas who really shouldn't be in any seat of power to begin with.

I don't know shit about Gingrich except that Glen Beck said even he wouldn't vote for him, so that's reason enough for me. If you're a Republican and Glen Beck says "NOPE!" it's usually because you're insane or an asshole.

That being said. Pretty much all the candidates suck. Obama sucks too. It's basically gonna be a battle of who do we think is going to suck less. I don't vote though, because all politicians are liars and crooks. I hope Trump keeps his word and comes back in as independent if he doesn't like the guy who gets nominated. I fucking love Trump.

 

[Myzozoa]

What at all is there to like about Trump? I really want to know.

 

[macle]

Trump dropped out awhile ago....

I really don't remember what Trump's ideas were but people I talked to liked the fact that lobbyist couldn't buy him off since Trump already have more money than any man should need.

 

[Surgo]

At least until he declares bankruptcy again.

 

[Alan]

Trump dropped out awhile ago....

I really don't remember what Trump's ideas were but people I talked to liked the fact that lobbyist couldn't buy him off since Trump already have more money than any man should need.

There were rumors that he said if he didn't like whoever received the republican nomination he would re-enter as an Independent candidate. Not sure how valid that was.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

You guys probably won't believe this but I am a registered Republican (only so that I can vote for Ron Paul in primaries). He's the only person I've ever voted for on a national level and I don't see that changing for a long time.

b. Ron Paul: I respect Ron Paul. I really do. The man has convictions and he sticks to them. That being said, his convictions are way out to the right of what anyone in America is ready for now or ever will be. We are by nature a conservative nation. Not as far as political beliefs but in our fear of change. Obama campaigned on "change," true. but Ron Paul is campaigning on "CHANGE!!!!!!" His vision of America is just too far removed from the mainstream to receive more than his diehard base of supporters.

The bolded parts are where I completely disagree with you. Ron Paul's views on the two main things that have been touched on so far in this thread - drug legalization and the war on terror - couldn't be any more in line with the general public. Cannabis legalization is now supported by a majority of Americans, and I don't think I've ever talked to a person that wouldn't support ending our multiple wars as soon as possible. Ending those two "wars" would be more beneficial than anything any president has done in the last 50 years.

The main opposition I see from Paul opponents is "omg he's religious". First of all, not voting for him based on religious views makes you just as bad as the neocons who voted for Bush in 2004 to try to stop gay marriage. Secondly, even if he did have the power to make sweeping rulings on wedge issues like abortion/gay marriage, he's been pretty clear in stating that he would leave those decisions to the states. I can only support that. I really don't think some guy from West Nowhere, Wyoming should be deciding who I can marry...just like I don't think me from Massachusetts should be deciding the policies in their homes. Local governments are way less corruptible and much more prone to act on criticism. It baffles me that Congress has all-time low approval ratings yet people want to give them more power and more influence.

tl;dr- If you think Paul's personal beliefs are so bad that you'd never vote for him, then you deserve a country where trillions of dollars of our money are spent on destroying the Middle East/spying on and assassinating American citizens/given freely to bankers/filling prisons with pot smokers. If you say you have a moral objection to Paul but no moral objections with those other things, then you should reconfigure your moral compass. I could never support any other candidate in this election other than Paul.

1) Take this thread seriously. I will actually be monitoring it for trolling/flaming. Take note jokesters and hyper-partisans.

Thanks. I know I've been guilty of this in the past but I'll be good, I promise :doom:

 

[danilo]

The only person who's going to win is Mitt Romney. I think most of us or all of us can agree to that. The one thing that I don't understand is why everyone hates that Mitt Romney always changes his stands. I for one, like it. I don't understand why people see mind changing as a weakness and not a strength. If you realize that something you said was not true, based on evidence you later receive, why not change your mind? Are people just scared that Romney will change his mind of big issues, or are they just scared that he doesn't manifest true republican values?

I don't know much about Santorum(except for the whole gay thing) or Huntsman(but I doubt he's going to win because he said and i quote "they pick corn in Iowa, they pick presidents in New Hampshire"). Huntsman's foreign policy experience could be refreshing, as I think that American foreign policy is way too mercantilistic.

I know this is kind of off topic, but who are the democratic candidates, with the exception of Obama?


Oh, and I'll never really support Ron Paul if he wants to legalize drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. That doesn't seem like something to even debate.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Oh, and I'll never really support Ron Paul if he wants to legalize drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc. That doesn't seem like something to even debate.

Sorry for making 2 out of 3 posts in this thread...but that is completely debatable. Drug decriminalization/legalization has worked on large scales before (see Portugal, the Netherlands for examples), and there are many studies that show decriminalization actually decreases use of hard drugs in the general population. Education has been proven to work, and it's clear that "don't do drugs or you'll go to jail" is not working. People who would never do heroin aren't just going to say "oh it's legal now? Better shoot up!" Drugs should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one.

But this isn't a drug policy thread so I'll just end my post there. No matter what your opinion on the matter is, saying that something shouldn't even be debatable is a major cop out.

I know this is kind of off topic, but who are the democratic candidates, with the exception of Obama?

As far as I know, there are none. I can't think of any cases where the incumbent wasn't automatically the next candidate unless they stepped down on their own. I also don't think any other Democrat would have a chance. It would take a pretty massive scandal to unseat Obama from the Democratic nomination.

 

[Smith]

I agree that a president should be able to change his views if he's proven wrong or something, but this is easily interpreted as weakness. People vote for candidates for where they stand on certain issues, and if that can easily change it doesn't exactly prove competence nor inspire confidence.

 

[popemobile]

The bolded parts are where I completely disagree with you. Ron Paul's views on the two main things that have been touched on so far in this thread - drug legalization and the war on terror - couldn't be any more in line with the general public. Cannabis legalization is now supported by a majority of Americans, and I don't think I've ever talked to a person that wouldn't support ending our multiple wars as soon as possible. Ending those two "wars" would be more beneficial than anything any president has done in the last 50 years.

Those are actually the points that most people agree on. The rest are what terrify me.

The main opposition I see from Paul opponents is "omg he's religious". First of all, not voting for him based on religious views makes you just as bad as the neocons who voted for Bush in 2004 to try to stop gay marriage. Secondly, even if he did have the power to make sweeping rulings on wedge issues like abortion/gay marriage, he's been pretty clear in stating that he would leave those decisions to the states. I can only support that. I really don't think some guy from West Nowhere, Wyoming should be deciding who I can marry...just like I don't think me from Massachusetts should be deciding the policies in their homes. Local governments are way less corruptible and much more prone to act on criticism. It baffles me that Congress has all-time low approval ratings yet people want to give them more power and more influence.

Him being religious is certainly not doing him any favors as far as my vote goes, but that's the least of my concerns. His economic and foreign policies are straight up bad. Horribly naive. Ending the fed and the gold standard are not good ideas, and the whole "remove troops from everywhere" is, as already mentioned, "just too far removed from the mainstream to receive more than his diehard base of supporters." That plus the whole privatized healthcare, AND the fact that he's religious and a "staunch constitutionalist" (which is also a joke) means I would never vote for him

tl;dr- If you think Paul's personal beliefs are so bad that you'd never vote for him, then you deserve a country where trillions of dollars of our money are spent on destroying the Middle East/spying on and assassinating American citizens/given freely to bankers/filling prisons with pot smokers. If you say you have a moral objection to Paul but no moral objections with those other things, then you should reconfigure your moral compass. I could never support any other candidate in this election other than Paul.

tl;dr- that's not it at all, and in fact I often see Paul supporters using that line of reasoning to dismiss people who don't like him. I will admit that him sticking to his views is admirable, but his views suck so I could never support Paul.

tl;dr2- not voting republican either way

 

[danilo]

I agree that a president should be able to change his views if he's proven wrong or something, but this is easily interpreted as weakness. People vote for candidates for where they stand on certain issues, and if that can easily change it doesn't exactly prove competence nor inspire confidence.

Very true, didn't think about that. One day we'll have brilliant republicans again. Until then, we're stuck with these guys T_T