IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

29 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Republican Presidential Primaries, Who are the best candidates?
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post May 11 2011, 06:14 PM
Post #1





Guests






After a thankfully slow start to the presidential campaign season, it's finally getting in gear. There's been one debate (albeit with mostly B-side candidates), and Newt Gingrich is expected to announce his candidacy today. Near-certain candidates include Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. Less certain ones include Mike Huckabee, Sarah Palin, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

Here's a very short primer on some of the candidates' strengths and liabilities (though what some would consider flaws, others might like!) What does ADT think of the presidential field? Everyone's voice is welcome here - though if you're a known Democrat and begin forcefully advocating Donald Trump, we reserve the right to question your motivation. tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Dr. Roffles_*
post May 11 2011, 06:43 PM
Post #2





Guests






would probably support if they won the nomination: Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul.

would possibly support, possibly not: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty

would not possibly support: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Captaink_*
post May 11 2011, 06:48 PM
Post #3





Guests






QUOTE (Dr. Roffles @ May 11 2011, 01:43 PM) *
would probably support if they won the nomination: Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, Gary Johnson, Ron Paul.

would possibly support, possibly not: Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Tim Pawlenty

would not possibly support: Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump

Id swap pawlenty and paul....but that's just me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post May 11 2011, 06:51 PM
Post #4





Guests






Ron Paul's support of abolishing the Federal Reserve is pretty much a deal-breaker for me. I think it's very dangerous to let politics influence monetary policy.

The Economist has an interesting article on Tim Pawlenty, calling him a "placebo".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_VarsityBoy_*
post May 11 2011, 07:19 PM
Post #5





Guests






Huntsman, Daniels, Romney in no particular order.

lolcandidate: Gingritch
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 11 2011, 07:36 PM
Post #6





Guests






This election will be an absolute mockery. This is the limpest field of greasy "Washington insiders," Bible-thumping social conservatives on wife #3, and contrarian policy lemmings I could possibly imagine. The one guy with any ideologically consistent views with any tangible philosophical background is also completely batshit insane. Unless somebody else comes out of nowhere, the GOP is even more useless than previously thought. I'm mildly interested in Gary Johnson's candidacy, but I doubt that will become anything.

Now, I'm not posting as a raging liberal trying to instigate the opening salvo a debate here, I'm legitimately concerned, because a Republican candidate doesn't really need to go all that far for me to be willing to seriously consider him. I really only require the following stipulations:

-The Supreme Court has ruled on Roe. It has ruled on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The issue is dead and buried, and if you try to reanimate the corpse for your own political purposes, you're a manipulative reactionary whose thirst for power must exceed your stupidity, although functions of each may approach infinity.
-I don't want to bend over backwards for Israel, Taiwan, or any of the various dictatorships we prop up for our own political purposes, and I don't want any sort of morality or value based foreign policy. I want calculated, timely best responses to issues that must be addressed and a non-interventionist course otherwise.
-The rights of individuals must not be infringed on the basis of sexual orientation. FDMA is clearly unconstitutional and petty, the Federal government has no business in such matters, and don't ask, don't tell is a load of horse smurf.
-Firearm proliferation is a serious issue. That's all I need to hear, honestly. A Republican legitimately concerned that guns do indeed kill people.
-Military spending is not untouchable, nor should it be.

These are really all that I need to be confident that a candidate is reasonably like myself, and someone I could possibly vote for. The rest is easy!

-Stop talking about "job creation," as this simplistic algorithm for success and advocate sound economic policies that boost the nation's long-run potential for growth and secure it from exogenous shocks and our own missteps. You can be business friendly without being a mindless populist.
-Let's lower taxes. When we can. Which isn't now.
-The environment is everyone's business. Saying you don't want to impose environmental regulations on businesses is the weakest pro-business platform ever, but that seems to be as far as Republicans want to go to suit their detractors on both issues. Drive innovation with incentives, and promote pure public goods.
-Let's talk about...say, internet regulatory issues. Where's the debate on relevant issues from people who have taken the time to educate themselves on the topic?

I don't see myself voting Republican this term, but by all means, my vote is very much achievable by them. Promises of addressing the issues of the last election (chiefly among them health care reform) have been insufficiently lived up to, and I still am an advocate of the policies that I advocated a few years ago. But, I have a wide range of concerns about the future that I don't see being addressed from either side, and my vote is entirely up for grabs.

I could be underestimating the Republicans, but I don't see this going beyond comparing their respective social conservative credentials. I see no innovation, no ingenuity, and no spark coming from this election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_blondie13_*
post May 11 2011, 07:41 PM
Post #7





Guests






*Disclaimer: I'm a moderate, so I nit pick potential candidates like crazy.

Newt Gringrich- Can't see myself supporting him. Guy just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't know very much about his ideas compared to some of the other candidates, but I'm just not a fan.

Mitt Romney- I kind of like him...I think he's really down to earth and I love his stance on abortion because it's pretty much the same as mine. Yet gay marriage is my most leftish position and he's very right on that...which is unfortunate.

Tim Pawlenty- Personally, I like the guy. I could see myself supporting him. I mesh up with a lot of his stances. However, his stance on gay marriage is a deal breaker. I don't think I can justify voting for someone who supports an amendment saying marriage is only between a man and a woman due to my beliefs on the issue...especially after watching my uncle marry his partner of 14 years in Washington, D.C. last year.

Ron Paul- He doesn't get me enthusiastic, but I would support him. He's a smart man and he doesn't blatantly oppose any of my most important views.

Rick Santorum- No. No. No. HELL NO. His views on Homosexuals make me absolutely sick. No one that hateful should be allowed in the whitehouse. Ever.

Mike Huckabee- Just not a fan of his stances on most social issues, so I really couldn't support him.

Sarah Palin- I honestly may be the first to say I don't mind her as a person. However, as a political candidate, she is both too inexperienced and uninformed for my tastes. That and (sexist as is sounds) I feel that most women don't belong in the Whitehouse. I just know that most women I know would get too crazy one week out of every month to handle things like foreign policy with grace. And she's on the brink of menopause, meaning that there's potential that moodiness would go from one week of the month to ALL THE TIME.

Mitch Daniels- I liked his truce on social issues until the planned parenthood dealio. Yes, it makes sense as a political maneuver to get republicans to like him...but come on. Anyway, if he could focus back on economics and fixing the economy like he wanted to initially, I could see myself supporting him.

Jon Huntsman- He's not horrible. His social views are definitely more conservative than mine, but not to the point where I would completely oppose supporting him. I definitely want to see more of him in the future.

Michele Bachmann- Personally, I think this woman is batsh*t insane. Read what I said about Sarah Palin and then apply it to Bachmann. No. Way. In. Hell.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post May 11 2011, 07:55 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



Daniels is my number one for the Republicans, I saw him on a couple of interviews and he's very mellow about his beliefs, not one of those "my way or the highway" ideologies. Hunstman, Romney are the next two with Ron Paul a legitimate candidate this time around because his ideas for government reduction are now being touted as legitimate instead of making him look insane (although he still very likely is insane). Romney is the best in terms of the politician look, but that's not going to be a strength going against Obama.

Gingrich winning would be the worst possible thing to happen to America. Almost cause a shutdown in the late 90s, pushed for the most partisan platform possible in his time as House leader, tends to overreact, and has slang wifes like crack. He's just like Tom DeLay to me.

Bachmann, Palin, and Huckabee are absolute no's for many reasons. Bachmann is blindly Tea Party/upper-crust Republican, Palin is Palin, and Huckabee stated his top platform would be abortion which as RM pointed out is ridiculous.

I think all of this is moot; even before B killed S, I thought Obama would have no problems because of his large campaign treasure chest, the epic fail of Republican state legislators (less so in National gov), and the improvement in jobs we are currently seeing (240k plus in private sector last month most since '07 I believe) that will continue throughout next year. The only roadblock is oil; if it continues to go up (just started going down I think?) and settles at an insane price, it might cost him dearly although it is not at all his fault.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 11 2011, 08:29 PM
Post #9





Guests






QUOTE (blondie13 @ May 11 2011, 12:41 PM) *
That and (sexist as is sounds) I feel that most women don't belong in the Whitehouse. I just know that most women I know would get too crazy one week out of every month to handle things like foreign policy with grace.


It would be a little excessive to mention every historical female head of state from Cleopatra, Wu Zetian, and Margaret I to Sirivamo Bandaranaike, Isabel Peron, and Maggie Thatcher, but lets suffice it to say that Ireland, Finland, Switzerland, Argentina, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, India, Costa Rica, Brazil, Germany, Iceland, Bangladesh, Croatia, Australia, Slovakia, and Peru are actually doing reasonably right now, and are presently all led by women.

I don't mean to attack you in a way that discourages you from posting here, because I'm really glad we have new members that being fresh ideas all the time, but I am really afraid that when India can elect Indira Ghandi and Pakistan can elect Benazir Bhutto (hell, in the 1980s, too...we were still coming to terms with Geraldine Ferraro), people in the United States are still uncertain about the ability of women to lead. I am no feminist, but the fact that Yulia Tymoshenko can overcome such great institutional obstacles to democracy in Ukraine, Tansu Ciller was able to successfully modernize the Turkish military and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could successfully overhaul the Philippine economy seems to prove to me that Helen Clark and Violeta Chamorro weren't necessarily bad choices either. I don't think it's really fair to look at Khaleda Zia or Gro Harlem Brundtland any differently than a comparative male leader, and I certainly don't buy that Han Myeong-sook or Hanna Suchocka were any less successful than their male counterparts would have been.

I'm going to end this diatribe now, but please, the world is changing fast. Human beings can do incredible things, male and female, and no one can reasonably be discounted or restricted from consideration on that basis.

This post has been edited by Research Monkey: May 11 2011, 08:34 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_blondie13_*
post May 11 2011, 09:17 PM
Post #10





Guests






Research Monkey, I'm not trying to be backwards and I understand what you're saying. I also am not going to argue against your points, because I agree with them completely. There are great woman leaders in many countries and I'm certain there always will be. There are also great woman leaders within the United States, especially in places such as in the Senate. And please note, I said MOST women. I wouldn't trust most men in the white house either, but there are a larger amount of them running and a higher likelihood that out of those candidates one will be suitable, just because of the sample space. It takes a very special type of person to lead a country, be it woman or man. You have to have a thick skin and deal with things well, as well as be charismatic and stick to your guns. You can't let your emotions get in the way. Many women do find that hard to overcome, and I've seen women similar to Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann in my community who have made hormone fueled choices which they later regretted. It can be mastered, but the women who are currently running have not proven that they will not let that get in the way. And that's more or less what I meant. I personally would have backed Hillary Clinton, looking back on it, in the last election. She stands out to me as a woman who's got it together/doesn't let her emotions get in the way. And if Olympia Snowe was ever to run for president, I would be all over that. I don't want a woman president for the novelty of having a woman president, I want a woman president who stands out among the crowd, handles herself with grace, and takes on the men without flinching.

This post has been edited by blondie13: May 11 2011, 09:21 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post May 11 2011, 09:25 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



Minus the nationalist calls, I agree Merkel has been pretty great.

Props to the Japanese Prez (or PM?) for giving up his salary until their crisis is finished btw.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post May 11 2011, 11:12 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



In terms of economics, politics, no meaning whatsoever; for solidarity with the people during a time of immense crisis, it's pretty smart and generous. Yea he doesn't make much money probably, but it shows he's willing to show his job isn't done or fulfilled until he gets the country back on track.

Solidarity in itself is pretty significant, especially now for Japan. If they didn't trust the Prez and government, it could be a complication of epic proportions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_dizzyizzy_*
post May 12 2011, 08:09 AM
Post #13





Guests






QUOTE (debator @ May 11 2011, 05:34 PM) *
^ugh, that's such a meaningless gesture.


You know who else knows it's a meaningless gesture? This guy:

Roger Goodell did the same thing, and people are still pissed at him.


Anyways, not Palin or Bachmann, I like Mike, but not necessarily his policies, and, uh, I haven't done my homework yet. I just wanted to post that picture.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_tryingtothinkagain_*
post May 12 2011, 02:42 PM
Post #14





Guests






^Sometimes I don't think people who look like that should be allowed to continue to exist.

/my politics
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post May 12 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #15





Guests






Research Monkey, although you say you'd be willing to vote for a Republican, the content of your post suggests you'd pretty much only vote for a Republican who's exactly like a Democrat (except perhaps on some economic issues). A Republican candidate "doesn't need to go that far" to get your vote? Let's go through your statements.

QUOTE
-The Supreme Court has ruled on Roe. It has ruled on Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The issue is dead and buried, and if you try to reanimate the corpse for your own political purposes, you're a manipulative reactionary whose thirst for power must exceed your stupidity, although functions of each may approach infinity.

Sorry, but the issue is not "dead and buried". We just had an abortion debate, so I don't really want to start another one, but Supreme Court rulings do not end all discussion (as I'm sure you would agree in the case of Citizens United). It is a serious social problem that so many American women feel the need to terminate their pregnancies, and it is a serious question whether or not unborn babies have human rights. The dream of ending abortion is fundamental to a coherent conservative philosophy, even though Republicans differ on the best policies to achieve it. Asking Republicans to give up that issue is like asking Democrats to give up on universal health care: it makes a mockery of the core values the party stands for.

(Incidentally, I used to feel the same way you do: that I'd never vote for someone who wanted to overturn Roe. But I've come to realize that very intelligent and informed people, even up to the level of Supreme Court justices, can profoundly disagree on this.)

QUOTE
-I don't want to bend over backwards for Israel, Taiwan, or any of the various dictatorships we prop up for our own political purposes, and I don't want any sort of morality or value based foreign policy. I want calculated, timely best responses to issues that must be addressed and a non-interventionist course otherwise.

I think every candidate would probably say they support "calculated, timely best responses", but once you're president, figuring those out is actually a pretty difficult task. However, I would also be inclined to support a more non-interventionist Republican, and I think you'll start to see them differentiate themselves on this later on in the campaign; none of them have really talked much about foreign policy beyond trite and petty criticisms of President Obama (which are to be expected).

QUOTE
-The rights of individuals must not be infringed on the basis of sexual orientation. FDMA is clearly unconstitutional and petty, the Federal government has no business in such matters, and don't ask, don't tell is a load of horse smurf.

The definition of marriage is absolutely the federal government's business; a nation with 50 different definitions is untenable due to the problems arising from Article IV. As you know, I think there's a conservative case to be made for same-sex marriage, as well as a civil-rights one - but particularly after reading this article, I think there's also a case that federal legal recognition could be counterproductive. Regardless, even though I support same-sex marriage, I'd rather vote for a candidate who opposes it while recognizing the importance of marriage as an institution, instead of one who is indifferent to whether his government supports traditional families. (Mind you, "support" and "impose" are different, and some politicians stray too far toward the latter.)

QUOTE
-Firearm proliferation is a serious issue. That's all I need to hear, honestly. A Republican legitimately concerned that guns do indeed kill people.

What is "firearm proliferation"? I think all Republicans would agree that guns are dangerous in the hands of gangsters and murderers, but most would see harsher criminal penalties as a deterrent preferable to stricter gun laws that also keep guns away from law-abiding citizens.

I think I've run out of quotes, so I'll respond to the rest of your post in a follow-up. To be clear, my point is not so much that you are wrong on these issues (in fact, I think you're at least partially right on all of them), but that you seem to be expecting Republican candidates to take a large number of positions in direct conflict with their philosophy, both partisan and personal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stanleytree
post May 12 2011, 04:05 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Nazgul
Posts: 1,478
Joined: 25-March 18
Member No.: 12



There's only one segment who wish to keep talking about abortion, and that's the religious right. That to me is not an issue anymore, just something Republicans can talk about to fire up that base. Reagan ran on platforms of trying to end abortion, and nothing got done. It can be a talking point and something we can discuss, but it hasn't been on the government plate since the Courts shut it up, so to say it's still an issue would put it on par with the debt ceiling, immigrant babies turned citizens, unemployment, and all the other salient issues. Which I think is wrong.

It's kind of like decriminalizing marijuana for the left: a great talking point to rally a bunch of people, but nothing will change about it for a long time if ever.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AK_WDB_*
post May 12 2011, 04:11 PM
Post #17





Guests






Second part:
QUOTE (Research Monkey @ May 11 2011, 11:36 AM) *
-Military spending is not untouchable, nor should it be.
-Stop talking about "job creation," as this simplistic algorithm for success and advocate sound economic policies that boost the nation's long-run potential for growth and secure it from exogenous shocks and our own missteps. You can be business friendly without being a mindless populist.
-Let's lower taxes. When we can. Which isn't now.
-The environment is everyone's business. Saying you don't want to impose environmental regulations on businesses is the weakest pro-business platform ever, but that seems to be as far as Republicans want to go to suit their detractors on both issues. Drive innovation with incentives, and promote pure public goods.

Here is where I agree with you more. Republicans should recognize all four things you list here, and not doing so is silly. (I left out the Internet regulation part because I know zilch about it.) However, for each complaint about Republicans that you give here, I can give a corresponding one about Democrats:
- Social Security and Medicare are not untouchable, nor should they be. (And those things are a much higher portion of the budget than the military.)
- Exact same thing: Democrats obsess about "job creation" as much or more, even though it's not the government's job (heh) to guarantee everyone a job.
- Let's recognize that corporate and capital gains taxes are detrimental to the economy instead of just shortsightedly insisting "the rich can afford to pay more".
- Let's stop assuming that ANY policy intended to protect the environment is a good one, and recognize that some environmental regulations dramatically fail a benefit-cost analysis.

QUOTE
I don't see myself voting Republican this term, but by all means, my vote is very much achievable by them. Promises of addressing the issues of the last election (chiefly among them health care reform) have been insufficiently lived up to, and I still am an advocate of the policies that I advocated a few years ago. But, I have a wide range of concerns about the future that I don't see being addressed from either side, and my vote is entirely up for grabs.

Your post essentially says the following: "I'll consider voting for a Republican if his positions are 100% perfectly in line with my own; if not, I'll vote for the Democrat, even if his positions/record are no better." That makes no sense. I voted for Obama in 2008 despite knowing I disagreed with him on health care; I paid the price when I saw his health care bill passed, but I'm not going to demand that he agree to repeal it in order to gain my vote this time around. What I need to say on that issue is either (1) the health care bill is such a blunder that Obama has automatically lost my vote to the Republicans, or (2) the health care bill is a negative mark, but depending on the qualities of the Republican candidate, I may still vote for Obama.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 12 2011, 05:14 PM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (AK_WDB @ May 12 2011, 08:14 AM) *
Research Monkey, although you say you'd be willing to vote for a Republican, the content of your post suggests you'd pretty much only vote for a Republican who's exactly like a Democrat (except perhaps on some economic issues). A Republican candidate "doesn't need to go that far" to get your vote? Let's go through your statements.


My statement is almost a blatant lie, it mostly just means that I'd like to see an economic conservative/social libertarian candidate that doesn't need to be anointed by the religious right.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_VarsityBoy_*
post May 12 2011, 05:17 PM
Post #19





Guests






BeeTeeDub I'm surprised no one's talking about Christie. Also iirc Huckabee Barbour is not going to run (lol irrelevance). Newt however just announced.

This post has been edited by VarsityBoy: May 12 2011, 05:20 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Research Monkey_*
post May 12 2011, 05:18 PM
Post #20





Guests






QUOTE (VarsityBoy @ May 12 2011, 10:17 AM) *
BeeTeeDub I'm surprised no one's talking about Christie.


Sep 8th: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/08/c...d_n_708765.html

Yesterday: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-roo...g-for-president
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

29 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 15th October 2018 - 10:57 AM