Vote for the person who will save us from gay evil Socialist Europe land.
Printable View
Vote for the person who will save us from gay evil Socialist Europe land.
Why does the only acceptable answer have "lol" next to it? :mymelbert:
anybody who doesn't lol is a troll
*edits poll to add Huntsman*
oh wait, I can't do that anymore. oh well. They all suck anyway.
I can help my long lost buddy out.
But none of them promised me to make taco tuesday a national holiday... every tuesday. :(
THERE IS ONLY ONE ANSWER AND THE ANSWER IS THE MAN WHO QUOTES POKEMON THE MOVIE 2000 AND SIMCITY
Edit:
>2011
>Ron Paul
Herman Cain is also our savior from Muslim doctors, foreign officials from unpronounceable countries, women who refuse sexual advances, and Mexicans. We need to electrocute us some Mexicans.
Huntsman is the most sane candidate... meaning he has a snowball's chance in hell. He gets no coverage.
How is Ron Paul acceptable? A doctor who doesn't believe in evolution? A guy against ANY level of government interfering with our lives... oh, except telling a woman what she can do with her own body.
I don't give a trout what a candidate believes as long as they don't push their beliefs on me. Which Ron Paul doesn't. Last I read on the abortion issue, Ron Paul feels it should be left to the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yeargdribble
While I find some of the positions Ron Paul takes laughable and would almost certainly never vote for him because of his stance on some issues and the role government should play in our lives, what Shlup said combined with his general willingness to say exactly how he feels about everything at least makes me like the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
Most of Ron Paul's worst insanity deals with issues that the President really doesn't have any power to change. His position on abortion, for example, while terrible (it's ok to ruin women's lives and control their bodies as long as the states do it!), is not something the President can do anything about. Fortunately.
Still, his views on abortion, evolution, and church-state separation are enough to make me concerned about his judgment (IIRC, he also voted for DOMA, which is appalling). That being said, his views against the drug war and foreign invasions (which the President has near-unilateral control over) would save enough lives that he would be worth putting up with over almost all other candidates. The drug war is far, far and away worse than anything Paul would do.
However, a more consistent and socially liberal libertarian would be Gary Johnson, who of course has even less of a chance. He couldn't even get on this poll.
Judgement is the primary concern to me. I really have trouble with politicians who aren't grounded in reality. It makes me wonder what sort of decisions they will make and who they will pander to. I'm sorry, but a doctor.... that doesn't believe in evolution? How the f*** does he think disease works? This really bothers me. This shows someone who is fundamentally divorced from reality in favor of ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
While there's plenty about Huntsman I would disagree with and probably more that I don't even know about (because I'm not following anything closely yet)... the fact that he's a conservative that says, "Yeah, maybe a consensus of climate scientists know what the hell they are talking about," among other bits of similar wisdom make me like that he cares more about reality than pandering to a increasingly insane right. Sadly, this means that nobody know who the hell he is but everyone knows bats**t Bachmann, Perry (or governor good hair as we call him here), his doppelganger Romney... and capt. 999 who I can't help but feel is partially popular because he's the moderate Republicans' answer to having a man of color in the white house.
Sadly, if not for the other problems plaguing Cain already, I doubt he'd have a chance anyway just hearing enough people who, despite being Republicans, would "never vote for a nigger."
I am about as harsh a critic of religious belief trumping science as you can find, but I would gladly vote for an even worse religious whackjob who would save millions of lives, fight against the police state, and not invade other countries. It is about priorities, and looking at what the President is actually capable of doing. Bush is about as evangelical a nutjob as there is, yet he was unable to push creationism, anti-abortion, or other religious buffoonery on the country. It is an overstated concern.
Also, Cain is hilarious, so I hope he stays in the race. I look forward to his next crazy remark.
Gary Johnson is the only even moderately well-known Republican I could definitely consider voting for. Naturally, he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually winning. There are a couple of others who are even less known than Johnson whom I would also consider voting for, but to be honest I can't even remember their names at the moment. That said, if Paul were the nominee I would probably end up voting third party. But he won't be either. It is quite clear that the Powers That Be are willing to do almost anything to prevent him from being nominated, because they would stand to lose too much from a Paul presidency. The complete lack of coverage of his campaign is absolutely shameful. (The even more complete lack of coverage of Johnson's, especially given that he is a popular two-term governor, is even more so).
It is still anybody's guess who will actually receive the nomination. Cain won't, Bachmann won't, Perry won't. They've already sunk their campaigns. Gingrich is fairly good at bulltroutting but he's also a complete whack job and, to paraphrase Jon Stewart, twice as slimy as any other newt. That will play well with portions of the base, but it won't play well with the general public. It is unclear how much the Republican base cares about actually being able to win the election. It is also quite likely that he will place his foot in his mouth at some point before primary season starts. There is a large portion of people that want Anybody But Romney. That said, there are substantial business interests backing Romney and they may end up winning out over anyone else regardless, despite his lack of a consistent position on, well, anything.
I am sort of interested in seeing Romney win the nominee just to see how quickly his veneer of fundieness falls away as he then tries to cater to people who aren't so retarded.
Gingrich is a pompous, self-important blowhard better suited for a Fox News talk show than a political position.
Agreed on both counts. However Gingrich somehow manages to sound half-convincing when talking, which is more than I can say for most of the other contenders.
When people reject the politician with the least offensive policies because they aren't "grounded in reality," it really leaves me with that picking between a giant douche and a turd sandwich sadness. Ron Paul is insane, but every other politician I have seen that has half a chance in half a hell is a monumental pile of trout. Emphasis on monumental.
Meanwhile I'm sitting here in Jon Huntsman's camp and I know he doesn't have a chance in all hell :(
Seriously though none of the frontrunners are at all good for the GOP. Bachmann is insane even by their standards. Perry's an imbecile. Romney is seen as a John Kerry-tier flip-flopper, akin to Obama as a SOSHULIST, and viciously gutted education in MA, but probably the best of the major candidates because his attitude towards undocumented immigrants wasn't atrocious and when he tried to bring back the death penalty he actually wanted to include rigorous evidential standards. Paul's insane, but not bad for the reasons Wes mentioned. He has no chance. Cain was a darling for a very short time but he's not only been dogged by allegations of wrongdoing, he's shot himself in the foot in handling them, to the point that even Republicans are generally finding him a bit skeezy.
Herman Cain Campaign Ad: The Economy
Also his 9-9-9 tax plan based from SimCity.
I agree. Ron Paul is a crazy old man, but at least he speaks his mind and you know there's no bulltrout. He deserves respect for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22While I find some of the positions Ron Paul takes laughable and would almost certainly never vote for him because of his stance on some issues and the role government should play in our lives, what Shlup said combined with his general willingness to say exactly how he feels about everything at least makes me like the man.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShlupQuack
If I were a Republican, I'd vote for Huntsman. He is the most reasonable candidate they have. So of course he'll lose by a wide margin. I hate that they all have to pretend to be on the far right to win the primary, and then pretend to be in the middle to win the election.
I'd lol if they pick Cain. Not if they pick Perry, because they've done that before.
So am I the only one who thought this wasn't supposed to be a serious thread?
Oh and I guess I completely forgot about Gingrich :monster: He's possibly their best bet right now, which says all you need to know.
what i'm getting here is 4 moar years of blarack obama because your republic party is going to nominate their version of john kerry
let me guess: his (it sure as hell won't be a woman) platform will be
'at least i ain't black' - you just watch.
voting for an independent??? might as well hand obama a victoly.
John Kerry was boring but sane. These fools are lunatics, racists, sexists, homophobes and idiots. You can't really compare the two.
I personally wish that Cain had stayed in the race. He had ZERO chance of winning and he knew it too. Which makes laughing at him so much more enjoyable than say, John McCain who had a frighteningly good shot at being President. And Cain gave Stewart and Colbert a lot of material to work with which I appreciate.
John Kerry was supposed to lose in 2004. It was an insanely brilliant political move, if you think about it. The Democrats deliberately put up a weak candidate and hand the victory to the Republicans so they can be allowed preside over two increasingly unpopular wars and an economy that everyone knew was going to fail... during a midterm election. The Democrats then take the house and the senate and then they put up a really charismatic, powerhouse of a candidate while the Republicans are left with nothing but farting old men and Mormons.
Winning in '04 would have been the dumbest, most short sighted political move possible for the Dems. Inheriting a congress controlled entirely by Republicans, along Bush's wars and ailing economy would have simply made them unpopular lame ducks and they would certainly not be winning anything in 2012.
Edit: Also, nothing about John Kerry was sane. Nothing about any Democrat is even remotely sane. Hell, nothing about the political system in general is sane.
You give the Democrats way too much credit. They couldn't coordinate their way out of a paper bag.
Ron Paul is generally a straight shooter, but "leave it to the states" on abortion specifically means overturning Roe v Wade, which probably would mean a constitutional amendment. What Paul is saying there isn't exactly code (like Bush talking about Dred Scott in a debate) but it's a well staked out opinion and strongly pro-life, especially for someone as obsessed wih the constitution as Paul is.
Anyway, Gingrich doing well is amusing. I grew up with him as my Congressman, including when he was Speaker. He's a head case. Although I guess if Gingrich wins the presidency, I'll be able to say I've met a president.