Verified:

hawkeyee Game profile

Member
1080

Jan 5th 2012, 16:17:48

So Google has too much mindless drivel on it. I come to AT for my political information since at least some of you are able to give the layman's, to the point practical answer to my questions. So, here we are...

Could somebody please briefly describe the policies/points of view/way they would affect the nation etc. of the 3 or 4 GOP candidates who actually have a shot a the GOP nomination? For bonus points, tell me how I should feel about them as a left-leaning Canadian. (Obviously Obama ftw! but if I had to pick between the GOP candidates who should I root for?)
Minister
The Omega
Omega Retal Policy/Contacts: http://tinyurl.com/owpvakm (Earth Wiki)
Apply: http://tinyurl.com/mydc8by (Boxcar)

Trife Game profile

Member
5817

Jan 5th 2012, 16:28:24

'Summarize the GOP Candidates'

Dumb and Dumber

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Jan 5th 2012, 16:29:51

the democratic candidate?

bold faced liar.

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 6th 2012, 2:35:44

Oh this should be fun, do you want the conventional wisdom, or our own spin?

The Archaic version:

Mitt Romney - The guy you hated in high school but probably elected to student council anyway. Classic case of a child of privilege that makes a shallow attempt to hide his upbringing. Joiner that takes credit for team successes and distances himself from team failures. Will lie to you while he shakes your hand. Has already realized that all he has to do is not fluff it up.

Rick Santorum - Zealous WASP that not only can't see your side of it - he does not give a fluff about your side. He probably genuinely believes his own BS about gays ruining our economy. Has ridden his charisma and good looks in a weak district for years. Has a 'Google Problem' that probably makes him unelectable. The only remaining Republican that could push swing states back to the left.

Newt Gingrich - Thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and is usually superficially right. Knows the game very well and rarely makes outright gaffs. Hes talking farther right than he actually is because he has been keeping company with wackos lately. He thinks we care about Alexander Hamilton would have solved the treasury departments failures. We don't. He would love to debate Obama, but would rather not be president.

Ron Paul - Really truly honestly believes everything he is saying. Was Tea Party before Tea Party was cool. Like Gingrich, he is a cozy mix of a few good ideas and a lot of non-starters. In 75+ years he has lots of history from which to dig dirt - it will prove to be fertile ground if he threatens to be successful. Has probably already peaked, but considers his role in redefining the GOP a moral victory.

Rick Perry - Talks way farther right than he is, he was Al Gore's campaign manager in TX in 1988. He's never really ran for a competitive office, having been appointed governor of TX when GWB was elected president then used a huge corporate warchest to hold the office for the oil companies that pay his salary. He has steadily talked farther right than his upbringing and claimed credit for Texas booming economy when in fact he basically rode the wave of an energy boom. Sticks his foot in his mouth more than a Cirque de Solis dancer.

Barack Obama - His meteoric political rise intersected perfectly with GWB meteoric decent. Made a lot of pie in the sky promises while John McCain repeatedly shot himself in the foot. Now that he is president he realizes that its not a great job no matter how many times he lets the other team redraw the line in the sand. Has caved in so often his staff wears hard hats to avoid being hit be falling pieces. Already planning his career as Jimmy Carters spiritual successor.

Edited By: archaic on Jan 6th 2012, 3:06:06
See Original Post
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

Pang Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
5731

Jan 6th 2012, 2:42:53

That's a pretty good summation, archaic. But who wins from that group? and who wins the general election? I think Obama not worrying about reelection in 4 years is better than any aforementioned republicans.

Also, you forgot John Huntsman!! My gf refers to him as "that guy who got his daughters to dress up all fluffty and campaign for him" :p
-=Pang=-
Earth Empires Staff
pangaea [at] earthempires [dot] com

Boxcar - Earth Empires Clan & Alliance Hosting
http://www.boxcarhosting.com

augur Game profile

Member
62

Jan 6th 2012, 2:55:33

regrettably, with that list the more pertinent question is who loses ...

and it's clear, the american people.

aponic Game profile

Member
1879

Jan 6th 2012, 3:09:43

Originally posted by augur:
regrettably, with that list the more pertinent question is who loses ...

and it's clear, the american people.


yep.
SOF
Cerevisi

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 6th 2012, 3:12:06

I keep hoping that some day we will realize that the lowest common denominator does not actually have to be the status quo. The only way that will happen is to get the money out of the game and money is a VERY resilient contaminant. Fortunately, the presidency has become very much a figurehead position so none of these guys can make things much worse.

The US has not had a great president since Truman. None of these guys will be the next one.
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

hawkeyee Game profile

Member
1080

Jan 6th 2012, 3:18:06

Thanks archaic. That's mostly what I was looking for :)
Minister
The Omega
Omega Retal Policy/Contacts: http://tinyurl.com/owpvakm (Earth Wiki)
Apply: http://tinyurl.com/mydc8by (Boxcar)

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Jan 6th 2012, 3:18:10

other than surviving fdr, what do you give truman so much credit for?

(actual question, no argument..)..

Oceana Game profile

Member
1111

Jan 6th 2012, 3:18:27

Yes, pretty good.

Mitt summed nicely: he the reason the other guy leading changes every week. Because 75% know that Mitt is not the man, and the rest when they get the coverage as the leader shot themselves in the foot or stick it in their mouth.

Santorum can't be a WASP I guess you could call him a WASC, he isn't protestant, he's a catholic. He is the ultra conservative on Social issues, though he actually might have some reasonable economic ideas, like pro-Homemade manufacturing taxation, not sure if it wouldn't lead to WTO challenges.

Yes, Newt probably is the Smartest, but still manages to put the foot in mouth every so often. Could probably do a good job though... But like you said he really don't want the job, so isn't giving the effort to win the vote.

Poor Ron Paul, Looks like he on FOX they willn't actually say his name, Though looked like someone kept hacking their news graphic and get a half length scroll at the top of the screen that said RON PAUL CAME IN THIRD PLACE. as the speakers repeatedly talk about the 2 in a dead heat for 1st and then Newr was in 4th... Fool in 5th... etc.

Rick Perry, His puppetmaster cut the strings and went to the lowest bidder for the wi-fi service to mouth his mouth so unfortantely, he rarely can complete a sentence without screw-ups.
Huntsman and his 700 votes in IOWA even a good showing in New Hampshire, willn't help him get into the game.

Yes, honestly I think someone in the RNC bet the DNC, that anyone the pubs put up would beat O'Bummer, and so they let the DNC pick ten names to run.


DEMOCRAT: Obama - God lets hope change is coming, he is right there with Jimmy as the worst of the worst, he should drop out and become the head of the DNC, lets face it he knows how to campaign and fund raise extremely well, but LEAD for real, hasn't shown that he has learn that trick and he has had 3 years to start learning. Scary thing is because of the choices from the Pubs he will still be in a tight race and might actually come close to being re-elected.


Oceana Game profile

Member
1111

Jan 6th 2012, 3:23:23

to Braden:"other than surviving fdr, what do you give truman so much credit for?

(actual question, no argument..).."

Dropping the bomb so Main Islands in Japan didn't have to get invaded, surely it saved ALOT of lives on both sides.

and then I guess the COLD WAR, but what was the choices to just continue it as a HOT war (it fairly was anyway with Korea,NAM and dozens of side show wars), or learn Russian.

braden Game profile

Member
11,480

Jan 6th 2012, 3:29:17

i mean, really, dropping the bomb wasn't much of a debate. do you drop it, or let the one hundred thousand americans die storming the beach? really? because seventy years later i make that decision without a moments hesitation. i can't imagine he really, truely *struggled* with it.. especially considering they knew not what they actually held.. but revisionist history is always fun.

patton had the cold war pretty much in check. we already have the army here, i believe he said. if we're talking making the right choice, you end the forty or fifty years old cold war and proxy wars, but again, history can be fun.

my alphabet all works in one direction, i will never learn russian

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 6th 2012, 3:43:33

Originally posted by braden:
other than surviving fdr, what do you give truman so much credit for?

(actual question, no argument..)..


Closed the deal on WWII, racially integrated the military and federal government, post war reconstruction (both home and abroad - including Marshall Plan), GI Bill, presided over the baby boom and post depression economy and kept unemployment under 5%, Berlin air drop and the containment of communism, sponsored NATO. The buck stopped with him.

Typically Truman is rated between 5th and 10th in presidential rankings by historians.
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

BobbyATA Game profile

Member
2367

Jan 6th 2012, 4:10:48

Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman are the only four with a shot still.

The only thing dumber than presidential rankings by historians is qzjul's logic when it comes to abortion...

weasel Game profile

Member
101

Jan 6th 2012, 4:19:38

Originally posted by BobbyATA:
Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman are the only four with a shot still.


100 bucks says ron paul gets 10x more votes than huntsman overall.

EVO Internal Affairs Department

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 6th 2012, 4:36:32

Originally posted by BobbyATA:
Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman are the only four with a shot still.

The only thing dumber than presidential rankings by historians is qzjul's logic when it comes to abortion...


Define 'a shot', because Santorum or Huntsman will need several people ahead of them to actually get shot in order to ever hope for the whitehouse. Why do you think ranking presidents is any dumber than ranking football teams or celebrity cleavage?
Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

BobbyATA Game profile

Member
2367

Jan 6th 2012, 5:15:26

Originally posted by weasel:
Originally posted by BobbyATA:
Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Huntsman are the only four with a shot still.


100 bucks says ron paul gets 10x more votes than huntsman overall.


I wouldn't take that bet. Odds are Ron Paul does this...I mean there is a good chance Huntsman drops out after NH and Paul clearly will still be alive. But Huntsman has a way better shot at winning the nomination...

Paul has never had a serious shot at anything tho (which archaic I'd define as at least a 1% chance of winning nomination)

FWIW I just looked and Intrade agrees with my top 4... altho they do give Paul ~2% chance.

oats Game profile

Member
648

Jan 6th 2012, 6:53:47

Huntsman just needs to hang in until things descend to such a level that even the hardest heads say to themselves, 'this is enough, I can't pretend to be this stupid'.

Gingrich seems to have turned into some sort of little monster bent on destroying Romney. Maybe he'll play the role that Huckabee did last election.

alexbajd Game profile

Member
299

Jan 6th 2012, 6:55:06

Santorum -- The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter
that is sometimes the by-product of anal sex.

Google says it, so it must be true.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock.

oats Game profile

Member
648

Jan 6th 2012, 21:16:39

The Washington Post did a little summaries of the GOP candidates here. I've copied/pasted out the descriptors, quotes and tidbits that seemed helpful to me. Hopefully they are the same for you. The biggest writeups were on Perry, Bachmann and Romney as they were getting the attention early December when this was written. I left out Perry and Bachmann as they are now irrelevent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...1/gIQAkSGXlO_story_3.html


Mitt Romney, the problem solver

Arguments are compiled and advanced on the basis of analytics, not emotion. he is most fervent and animated in his pitch to be president when he talks about how he has fixed stuff before and he can fix stuff again. Romney ticks off what he says people in business understand, about the economy and job creation and making the nation hum again, that people in government do not. It’s a seven-point pitch, eminently sensible, and after each point, like the experienced corporate team-builder he is, Romney affirms the good sense of his audience: “And you understand that in the private sector.” “Incentives,” Romney exclaims, “have impact.” ...credits Romney for not cutting the budget for the homeless and for forming public-private partnerships that made headway on an intractable decades-old problem. is what used to be called — before the politics of personal confession — an upstanding citizen. acts generously, earns the loyalty of his staff and drives himself relentlessly to get the job done, whatever it is. obeisance to ideology would impose a rigidity that would inhibit Romney’s real talent, which is forging new ways to fix old problems. It’s as though he doesn’t understand what people don’t understand about him. He isn’t going to talk about feeling their pain. It seems he just wants to get to work relieving it. Dudley Do-Right in a Kim Kardashian world, a man temperamentally disinclined to revel in the disorder and lack of rules in modern campaigns. He’s a man forced to submit to a chaotic process he can’t remake or control. Its demands that he summon fiery rhetoric or offer up a personal tidbit are at odds with his public comportment. He is “a man who displays a nimble mind capable of both subtle nuance and broad understanding, combined with a principled degree of restraint in words and deeds.” Some who worked with Romney in business and in government found him imperious and condescending, and once in a while, his discipline falters and a phrase comes out that appears dismissive. Romney is not unaware of his flaws as a candidate and clearly has improved his performance since 2008. It’s just how we were raised,” Scott Romney said, “to have the capacity to do things.” Romney asks for data, and then more data. “There are answers in numbers — gold in numbers, Pile the budgets on my desk and let me wallow.” A passionate, emotional argument is not going to have much influence on the supremely rational mind of Mitt Romney.




Newt Gingrich: The GOP’s eccentric big thinker and bomb-thrower

upheaval agent. disrupter. smartest guy in the room. contemplative historian or combustible politician. combinatyion of intelligence, ambition, drive and ego.interest in everything. "At 19, just weeks after graduating from high school, he asked Jackie Battley, his 26-year-old geometry teacher, to marry him. (She said yes.) One year after getting his first faculty job at West Georgia, he applied to be chairman of the entire history department. (They said no.)"
"Gingrich lost two campaigns for Congress running as a moderate, environmentalist Republican. Then, in 1978, he ran for a third time as a full-throated movement conservative, attacking his Democratic opponent as a big-government liberal and railing against welfare.
He won and moved his family to Washington. " willing to shake things up. “I disagree with everything he said,” said Harvard Law graduate student Jennifer Devlin. “But he handles himself brilliantly. He’s clearly very intelligent.”


Ron Paul: The Alternative Candidate is a force to be reckoned with

...doesn't have 'positioins' on 'issues'. He has a philosophy. Government tramples liberty. boil the federal government down to a few, skeletal functions. end welfare state, cut foreign aid, halt overseas military action, abolish the Federal Reserve. distinct libertarian message. alternative candidate. believes that powerful and secretive forces have manipulated human events and bankroled wars. fears nation is turning into an Orwellian police state. He’s a stalwart opponent of the USA Patriot Act and regularly condemns post-Sept. 11 security measures, as well as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. delivered about 4,000 babies. “Doesn’t sit there and pat himself on the back. He’s a humble person. There’s no pride, none of this ‘I’m so great.’ ” likes to ride his bike and garden buit doesn't wear a helmet. “Seventy years of Keynesian economics have taught us to live like drug addicts.” Paul is not someone who is terribly politic. He’s not a dealmaker and is not interested in forging bipartisan compromises. Paul has been rooted in place, philosophically. The world of late has been bending his direction. He’s not to be underestimated. He says what he believes, believes what he says.

Jon Huntsman is study in understatement

“If people, enough of them, hear our message, they will coalesce around it, and we will do fine,” former Utah governor Jon Huntsman Jr. said. “It may take a little longer than those who are willing to light their hair on fire onstage,or engage in crazy political theatrics, but that’s okay. We’ll get there eventually.” arguably the most well rounded of any GOP contender. popular governor of one of the reddest states in the country; Mandarin-speaking diplomat who served as ambassador to China and Singapore; executive in a successful family business. only varsity player among all the Republicans. “I crossed a partisan line when I went to serve this administration, which was an outgrowth of my personal belief that you always put country first." “Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative.” If Huntsman is to have any path from the back of the pack, it is with independents.


Rick Santorum is long on substance, short on support

he’s still less harshly judgmental than advertised. “I call him a chocolate-covered strawberry, because he’s hard on the outside and soft on the inside,’’ his former aide says. “He’s combative, and can speak before he thinks, but once he figures out he’s hurt someone’s feelings, he apologizes,’’ genuinely feels bad and sometimes goes overboard trying to make amends. The candidate is long on substance, but not always the smoothest on the stump;
When it looked like he was going to lose his first Senate race, in 1994, Brabender remembers him worrying that he might have blown it for his campaign workers. Trailing badly in his last race, against Robert P. Casey Jr. in 2006, “everyone was telling him to move to the middle or throw [George W.] Bush under the bus, but he looked at the polls and said, ‘I don’t see how I can win this, but I do have a microphone, so I’m going to use it to talk about Iran’ — then spent the next three weeks talking almost exclusively’’ about the threat posed by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “No one could understand it.’’

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jan 7th 2012, 1:52:21

Romney - the biggest difference between him and the other candidates is that he has private sector experience. He founded a successful company, Bain Capital, and organized the 2002 Winter Olympics which turned a profit. He takes a lot of criticism because he got elected governor in one of the most Democratic states, so had to take liberal positions. He's taken back a lot of them and gets called a flip flopper. IMO, our economy needs someone like Romney that understands business and can do what it takes to recreate a healthy business climate in the US.

Newt is a historian and a politician. He kind of reminds me of Nixon. Has a lot of good ideas but it seems like he'd be more into playing politics than doing what's best for the country.

Santorum is a lot like a smoother spoken George W. Bush. Hawkish on foreign policy, socially conservative, "compassionate conservative" when it comes to fiscal issues, meaning he would spend lots of money like George W. Bush. Also, he's a Catholic, not a WASP. I haven't heard his comments on 'gays destroying the economy' but I suspect archaic made that up or misappropriated a Pat Robertson comment.

Paul is a libertarian. Minimum government, maximum civil rights, and a pacifist when it comes to foreign policy. His foreign policy is what makes him unpopular with Republicans. Would appease Iran and bring troops home from all over the world. Also wants to return to the gold standard and abolish the federal reserve.

Perry is a moron.

General Earl Game profile

Member
896

Jan 7th 2012, 6:18:41

No long winded posts needed.. it doesn't matter who wins the GOP race or who eventually becomes president. None of the republicans look fit for the job and neither does obama. Bottom line is that America loses one way or the other, and that is what makes me sad.
General Earl
----
Every time I read AT: http://i.imgur.com/jeryjn8.gif
︻╦╤─✮ ┄ ┄ RatttaTaatataatat!

KingKaosKnows

Member
279

Jan 7th 2012, 9:37:16

O.O

Ron Paul wants to get rid of the federal reserve? The infinite money magic machine that prints cash using nothing else than the value of the cash that was previously printed to give it value? The same machine that charges the government an interest for every penny they create out of thin air? (digital money for The lose) Wish I could vote :/

Can't we get Ron Paul as a president and Romney as its VP? Seems like the best combination out of all of them, and Obama isn't working.

KingKaosKnows

Member
279

Jan 7th 2012, 9:49:28

Aw fluff is cold... My fingers will fall...


The US National debt will NEVER disappear with the federal reserve charging the government an interest of every dollar they create.

At least that is how I remember the Federal Reserve (as federal as FedEx) works, could be wrong, as I have a couple of years without reading the latest socio-economic books.

Requiem Game profile

Member
EE Patron
9092

Jan 7th 2012, 12:55:06

Originally posted by hawkeyee:
(Obviously Obama ftw!...


No, just no!

When will people learn that there is very few differences between the democrats and republicans these days. It is basically the same party trying to trick us into believing that there are two. The line between republicans and democrats these days is very thin.

Politics is fluffed!

KingKaosKnows

Member
279

Jan 7th 2012, 13:24:17

Vote for change!!!!

Get rid of the federal reserve!!!

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 7th 2012, 17:24:30

WASP, WASC - its all just the proto-Taliban in suits as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Klown:
I haven't heard his comments on 'gays destroying the economy' but I suspect archaic made that up or misappropriated a Pat Robertson comment.


Klown, as usual - you fail. If you EVER find an instance of me making fluff up - please, please post it. Otherwise STFU.

http://tinyurl.com/7ltffmb

Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

weasel Game profile

Member
101

Jan 7th 2012, 19:11:11

Originally posted by KingKaosKnows:
O.O
Can't we get Ron Paul as a president and Romney as its VP? Seems like the best combination out of all of them, and Obama isn't working.


that doesnt make sense that romney would be his VP, they represent totally different ideologies. though it would be a good idea if they want to defeat obummer. i think the best idea for ron at this point is to leak who his VP will be if elected, and i hope his son is the choice.

EVO Internal Affairs Department

stymfalm Game profile

New Member
3

Jan 9th 2012, 1:56:01

The federal reserve is the agency for monetary policy (interest rates).
We need a federal agency for fiscal policy (tax rates).
There's no reason that people like Palin should be allowed anywhere near the tax lever.

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Jan 9th 2012, 15:16:45

The reason there is no good candidate is that the would be "good candidates" have realized that this nation's problems cannot be solved in the national capital. Hopefully some of those people have begun to see a solution in the 50 state capitals. It's time for the states to collectively remind Washington just who is closest to this nation's sovereignty. 34 states to demand a constitutional convention (never actually been done before, but still in the US Constitution); 38 states to ratify amendments to remove the Federal Government's abnormally large nose out the states' and the people's business.

The real fight is not for Washington, it's to unite the states in common, legal cause against the federal government. The people assigned a portion of their sovereignty to the states who in turn assigned a portion of that to the federal government. Someone needs to remind the federal government of this fact.
-Angel1

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jan 9th 2012, 16:58:10

Originally posted by archaic:
WASP, WASC - its all just the proto-Taliban in suits as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Klown:
I haven't heard his comments on 'gays destroying the economy' but I suspect archaic made that up or misappropriated a Pat Robertson comment.


Klown, as usual - you fail. If you EVER find an instance of me making fluff up - please, please post it. Otherwise STFU.

http://tinyurl.com/7ltffmb



...... Nothing on that blog supports what you said ...........

Also, as a rule of thumb, we don't usually use ultra liberal blogs as a source around here. Or ultra conservative blogs for that matter. I'll give you a pass this time, but try to use real sources in the future.

Edited By: Klown on Jan 9th 2012, 17:02:26
See Original Post

Trife Game profile

Member
5817

Jan 9th 2012, 20:08:16

Before anyone votes for Santorum, they need to google him and find out what he REALLY stands for!

It's just sick and disgusting!

archaic Game profile

Member
7011

Jan 10th 2012, 11:31:35

Originally posted by Klown:
Originally posted by archaic:
WASP, WASC - its all just the proto-Taliban in suits as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Klown:
I haven't heard his comments on 'gays destroying the economy' but I suspect archaic made that up or misappropriated a Pat Robertson comment.


Klown, as usual - you fail. If you EVER find an instance of me making fluff up - please, please post it. Otherwise STFU.

http://tinyurl.com/7ltffmb



...... Nothing on that blog supports what you said ...........

Also, as a rule of thumb, we don't usually use ultra liberal blogs as a source around here. Or ultra conservative blogs for that matter. I'll give you a pass this time, but try to use real sources in the future.


I'm just going by what he actually said Klown, sorry if thats not good enough for you'

"Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken.

If you think that we can be a society that kills our own, and that disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings. And you can’t say that we’re gonna take morality out of the public square, morality out of our schools, God out of our schools, and then expect people to behave decently in a country that requires, capitalism requires some strong modicum of moral consciousness if it’s gonna be successful."

Cheating Mod Hall of Shame: Dark Morbid, Turtle Crawler, Sov

enshula Game profile

Member
EE Patron
2510

Jan 10th 2012, 12:24:31

magic underpants vs happy clappy

and some other guy who had a lot of divorces or something

ViLSE Game profile

Member
862

Jan 10th 2012, 13:14:33

I think pretty much all the Republican candidates are totally barking mad. But then again thats the perspective from a person not living in the US. :)

trumper Game profile

Member
1557

Jan 10th 2012, 13:54:29

Originally posted by archaic:
Oh this should be fun, do you want the conventional wisdom, or our own spin?

The Archaic version:

Mitt Romney - The guy you hated in high school but probably elected to student council anyway. Classic case of a child of privilege that makes a shallow attempt to hide his upbringing. Joiner that takes credit for team successes and distances himself from team failures. Will lie to you while he shakes your hand. Has already realized that all he has to do is not fluff it up.

Rick Santorum - Zealous WASP that not only can't see your side of it - he does not give a fluff about your side. He probably genuinely believes his own BS about gays ruining our economy. Has ridden his charisma and good looks in a weak district for years. Has a 'Google Problem' that probably makes him unelectable. The only remaining Republican that could push swing states back to the left.

Newt Gingrich - Thinks he is the smartest guy in the room and is usually superficially right. Knows the game very well and rarely makes outright gaffs. Hes talking farther right than he actually is because he has been keeping company with wackos lately. He thinks we care about Alexander Hamilton would have solved the treasury departments failures. We don't. He would love to debate Obama, but would rather not be president.

Ron Paul - Really truly honestly believes everything he is saying. Was Tea Party before Tea Party was cool. Like Gingrich, he is a cozy mix of a few good ideas and a lot of non-starters. In 75+ years he has lots of history from which to dig dirt - it will prove to be fertile ground if he threatens to be successful. Has probably already peaked, but considers his role in redefining the GOP a moral victory.

Rick Perry - Talks way farther right than he is, he was Al Gore's campaign manager in TX in 1988. He's never really ran for a competitive office, having been appointed governor of TX when GWB was elected president then used a huge corporate warchest to hold the office for the oil companies that pay his salary. He has steadily talked farther right than his upbringing and claimed credit for Texas booming economy when in fact he basically rode the wave of an energy boom. Sticks his foot in his mouth more than a Cirque de Solis dancer.

Barack Obama - His meteoric political rise intersected perfectly with GWB meteoric decent. Made a lot of pie in the sky promises while John McCain repeatedly shot himself in the foot. Now that he is president he realizes that its not a great job no matter how many times he lets the other team redraw the line in the sand. Has caved in so often his staff wears hard hats to avoid being hit be falling pieces. Already planning his career as Jimmy Carters spiritual successor.


For what it's worth, Chernow's biography of Hamilton does say he did a better job deciphering our country's accounting by candlelight over roughly 70 days than OMB does today accuracy-wise. I would say that's pretty impressive and yes, wholely irrelevant to the future of our country.

Short summaries:

Mitt: Businessman with significant managerial experience, but who seemingly will say whatever it takes to become President.

Newt: Thinks he is the smartest man in the room and more often than not he is the smartest man in the room. Strokes of policy genius and strokes of policy insanity--usually about a 65-35 ration from genius-to-insanity. And correct, pandering some to win the primaries, but far more moderate than he lets on.

Rick (Santorum): After his wife had a miscarriage, they took the fetus home for the kids to meet, slept with it and took family photos with it. I understand it's tough to deal with a miscarriage and neonatal or I guess in this case prenatal attachment may create strong emotional ties so I would understand a burial, but all of that strikes me as just too weird. Rick is socially probably the most conservative in the race.

Rick (Perry): Actually a fairly decent executive of Texas, but he's rarely had to run a real election outside of Texas and the rest of the country doesn't necessarily follow Texas. Early gaffes already doomed him.

Ron: Abolish most federal spending, isolationist foreign policy and return to the gold standard. On the first note he gets some credit albeit he would literally abolish almost every agency. On the latter notes I think people are either in total agreement or total disagreement. He is very consistent in his views.

Jon: Son of a wealthy plastics scion (made the original Big Mac/Whopppers containers) and former Governor of Utah as well as the former Ambassador to China, he tends to be more socially moderate on gay marriage, slightly more fiscally moderate and is hoping folks like his made-for-tv family/looks. He's gotten little traction and is unlikely to go anywhere.

Vermin Supreme: The best candidate bar none.

aponic Game profile

Member
1879

Jan 10th 2012, 14:38:56

Originally posted by Angel1:
The reason there is no good candidate is that the would be "good candidates" have realized that this nation's problems cannot be solved in the national capital. Hopefully some of those people have begun to see a solution in the 50 state capitals. It's time for the states to collectively remind Washington just who is closest to this nation's sovereignty. 34 states to demand a constitutional convention (never actually been done before, but still in the US Constitution); 38 states to ratify amendments to remove the Federal Government's abnormally large nose out the states' and the people's business.

The real fight is not for Washington, it's to unite the states in common, legal cause against the federal government. The people assigned a portion of their sovereignty to the states who in turn assigned a portion of that to the federal government. Someone needs to remind the federal government of this fact.


If OWS builds enough momentum this could be a very viable outlet for change. I like your ideas.
SOF
Cerevisi

Pontius Pirate

Member
EE Patron
1907

Jan 10th 2012, 15:06:41

Originally posted by ViLSE:
I think pretty much all the Republican candidates are totally barking mad. But then again thats the perspective from a person not living in the US. :)
Huntsman isn't that bad for a Republican from the US, he'd be a normal "right winger" in most European countries. But it's a sad state of the world when after he tweets something along the lines of "I believe in evolution and the scientists on global warming," the electorate thinks worse of him.
Originally posted by Cerberus:

This guy is destroying the U.S. Dollars position as the preferred exchange for international trade. The Chinese Ruan is going to replace it soon, then the U.S. will not have control of the IMF

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jan 10th 2012, 15:35:30

Originally posted by archaic:
Originally posted by Klown:
Originally posted by archaic:
WASP, WASC - its all just the proto-Taliban in suits as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Klown:
I haven't heard his comments on 'gays destroying the economy' but I suspect archaic made that up or misappropriated a Pat Robertson comment.


Klown, as usual - you fail. If you EVER find an instance of me making fluff up - please, please post it. Otherwise STFU.

http://tinyurl.com/7ltffmb



...... Nothing on that blog supports what you said ...........

Also, as a rule of thumb, we don't usually use ultra liberal blogs as a source around here. Or ultra conservative blogs for that matter. I'll give you a pass this time, but try to use real sources in the future.


I'm just going by what he actually said Klown, sorry if thats not good enough for you'

"Letting the family break down and in fact encouraging it and inciting more breakdown through this whole redefinition of marriage debate, and not supporting strong nuclear families and not supporting and standing up for the dignity of human life. Those lead to a society that’s broken.

If you think that we can be a society that kills our own, and that disregards the family and the important role it plays, and doesn’t teach moral values and the important role of faith in the public square, and then expect people to be good, decent and moral when they behave economically, if you look at the root cause of the economic problems that we’re dealing with on Wall Street and Main Street I might add, from 2008, they were huge moral failings. And you can’t say that we’re gonna take morality out of the public square, morality out of our schools, God out of our schools, and then expect people to behave decently in a country that requires, capitalism requires some strong modicum of moral consciousness if it’s gonna be successful."



Exactly. And in my opinion, Santorum is spot on here. That quote is no where close to saying 'gays destroyed the economy'. Not even close, but because an ultra liberal blog decided to interpret it that way, you made your false claim.

qzjul Game profile

Administrator
Game Development
10,263

Jan 10th 2012, 16:21:27

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:
Originally posted by ViLSE:
I think pretty much all the Republican candidates are totally barking mad. But then again thats the perspective from a person not living in the US. :)
Huntsman isn't that bad for a Republican from the US, he'd be a normal "right winger" in most European countries. But it's a sad state of the world when after he tweets something along the lines of "I believe in evolution and the scientists on global warming," the electorate thinks worse of him.


Agreed; though I wish people wouldn't say believe; you don't "believe" in science, as it's not a religion, you acknowledge and agree with its principles and findings.

Saying you believe in evolution is like saying you believe in gravity...

but i'm just nitpicking ;)


Originally posted by Klown:

Exactly. And in my opinion, Santorum is spot on here. That quote is no where close to saying 'gays destroyed the economy'. Not even close, but because an ultra liberal blog decided to interpret it that way, you made your false claim.



o.O It may not say anything about gays, but the marriage thing is pretty darned close; that's about as right-wing puritan as you can get. Animals are wired to behave with a certain amount of morality; you don't need religion in public (or at all) to instill a sense of morality. And the family unit is not going to be affected by letting gay people marry; people living together in support of each other is what a family is.

His talk about "Wall Street" and "Main Street" has more to do with greed (esp corporate) and the fact that corporations "are people" but have no morality. Humans do have an ingrained sense of morality - corporations do not at all, and therein, I believe, is where one of the real problems lies.



Originally posted by BobbyATA:
The only thing dumber than presidential rankings by historians is qzjul's logic when it comes to abortion...


What is your logic then, if you don't like mine?
Finally did the signature thing.

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jan 10th 2012, 17:34:29

[quote poster=qzjul; 14592; 262455]

Originally posted by Klown:

Exactly. And in my opinion, Santorum is spot on here. That quote is no where close to saying 'gays destroyed the economy'. Not even close, but because an ultra liberal blog decided to interpret it that way, you made your false claim.



o.O It may not say anything about gays, but the marriage thing is pretty darned close; that's about as right-wing puritan as you can get. Animals are wired to behave with a certain amount of morality; you don't need religion in public (or at all) to instill a sense of morality. And the family unit is not going to be affected by letting gay people marry; people living together in support of each other is what a family is.

His talk about "Wall Street" and "Main Street" has more to do with greed (esp corporate) and the fact that corporations "are people" but have no morality. Humans do have an ingrained sense of morality - corporations do not at all, and therein, I believe, is where one of the real problems lies.

Humans are naturally selfish more so than they are moral. There may be a certain amount of natural morality, but more so than that, it needs to be taught to our young people. The single most important institution for teaching morality is the family, and especially the nuclear family. Males and females are capable of teaching different, and equally important lessons to children.

Religion provides a moral compass to people. If not from an absolute like religion, where ought people get their moral guidance? I suppose from the idea that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated, but I think religion provides more than that. You cannot read the philosophy of Christ and argue that society would not be better off if it adopted his principles.


To your next point, what is a corporation? It is a group of people working together. A corporation as a monolithic entity may not have morality, but the individuals that comprise the corporation can. Moral leaders can guide the corporation in a moral direction, and immoral leaders, the opposite. Santorum is arguing that by offering conflicting signals about morality to young people, by moving away from the most important institution to teaching morality to young people in the nuclear family, and by moving away from society's moral compass in religion, we essentially move to a society where each person is his own god and his own absolute. There is no universal standard of decency and morality to guide people. The results are not good, and the lack of integrity and morality that led to the financial crisis is one example.

Klown Game profile

Member
967

Jan 10th 2012, 17:34:54

Er, not sure what happened there, responding to you qzjul.

grumpy Game profile

Member
102

Jan 12th 2012, 4:56:10

dumb, dumber, dumbest

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Jan 12th 2012, 8:23:11

if obama could only do his job as well as he could give speeches, we wouldn't even care about the GOP candidate.

i feel like when (or if, depends on how you see it :P) the US falls from power, we will look back at how big of an idiot bush (no talk, bad actions) and obama (all talk, no action) collectively are.

that whole jimmy carter thing that someone wrote above hit the spot. after bush's big fluffups the last thing we needed was a president who sat there and did nothing. that's why we voted for obama to be our president. because he promised us great things with all these fancy speeches. and then he just sat there like an idiot doing nothing afterwards.

Edited By: hanlong on Jan 12th 2012, 8:32:15
See Original Post
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

hanlong Game profile

Member
2211

Jan 12th 2012, 8:24:42

and i like ron paul but he is too straight laced and only do thing because what he feels is right and is extremely consistent.

this is why a lot of people (including myself) love him, but also why he will never win. he won't waver from his beliefs just to win some votes, unfortunately :(
Don Hanlong
Don of La Famiglia

ViLSE Game profile

Member
862

Jan 12th 2012, 10:03:06

Originally posted by Pontius Pirate:
Originally posted by ViLSE:
I think pretty much all the Republican candidates are totally barking mad. But then again thats the perspective from a person not living in the US. :)
Huntsman isn't that bad for a Republican from the US, he'd be a normal "right winger" in most European countries. But it's a sad state of the world when after he tweets something along the lines of "I believe in evolution and the scientists on global warming," the electorate thinks worse of him.


Nice to hear that PP, thats one Republican I have not heard much about. Perhaps he is a bit more sane than the rest. :-)

Sir Balin Game profile

Member
652

Jan 12th 2012, 14:09:09

i had dinner with Romney back in 2003 and saw him a couple times since then. still wouldn't vote for him - just wanted to brag.

Angel1 Game profile

Member
837

Jan 12th 2012, 15:25:57

Constitutional Convention folks, that's what we really need. Time to remove the federal government from the states' and the people's business
-Angel1

BobbyATA Game profile

Member
2367

Jan 12th 2012, 15:44:15

Originally posted by hanlong:
and i like ron paul but he is too straight laced and only do thing because what he feels is right and is extremely consistent.

this is why a lot of people (including myself) love him, but also why he will never win. he won't waver from his beliefs just to win some votes, unfortunately :(


also his foreign policy is nuts. He'd let Iran go nuclear without even trying to stop them. I understand people's frustrations with foreign wars after Iraq and Afghanistan, but Paul is a major over-correction, and a dangerous one...