REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Republicans: who you got?

POSTED BY: PIZMOBEACH
UPDATED: Thursday, August 18, 2011 07:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1214
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, August 15, 2011 8:22 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


As always, I come here to learn... 3 questions for our Republican posters:

1. Who do you think will be the Rep's candidate?
2. Who do you WANT to be the Rep's candidate?
3. If 1 & 2 are the same person, what is the most compelling reason for your choice?

declared:

- Michele Bachmann
- Ron Paul
- Rick Santorum
- Herman Cain
- Rick Perry
- Mitt Romney
- Newt Gingrich
- Jon Huntsman
- Thad McCotter

Huntsman scares me the least, but that may be because I know the least about him.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 10:18 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I found this to be interesting comparison of three of the candidates:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/08/15/frum.perry.economy/index.html?hp
t=hp_c1


Specifically concerning job creation and what's behind the sound bites:

"Through two years of weak economic recovery, Texas has led the nation in job creation. Of all the jobs created in the United States since 2009, 38% have been created in Texas.
But if Texas has created many jobs, it has failed to create good jobs. Many of the jobs created since 2009 pay only minimum wage, and Texas, along with Mississippi, has the highest percentage of minimum wage workers in the U.S."

"Yes, compared to the government-led economic development symbolized by President Barack Obama's stimulus spending, there is something to be said for the Texas approach. At least the Texas approach puts people to work. But must Americans choose only between the two ugly options: no jobs vs. low wages?"

Interesting to me:
"Here is the opportunity for one of the other candidates in the Republican race, Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman perhaps, to speak for a different kind of approach: an approach that builds the American middle class.
The textbooks teach that higher wages come from higher productivity. Higher productivity comes from higher capital investment and improved human capital. Government has an important role:
• Government can rewrite its tax rules to promote investment -- by for example shifting from anti-investment taxes such as the corporate income tax to consumption taxes such as a value-added tax.
• Government can enhance the quality of the country's infrastructure. This is more than a matter of building roads and tunnels. If government could rationalize security procedures to speed travelers through airports faster -- or make spectrum available to improve the reliability of cellphone communications -- or change labor laws to encourage telecommuting -- it will enhance economic efficiency in cumulatively dramatic ways. Here was the tragedy of the Obama economic stimulus: that $800 billion boosted aggregate demand, sure, but because so much of it was spent to keep state and local government employees in their existing jobs, it did little or nothing to expand the nation's future output."



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:34 PM

KIRKULES


I don't think there are many Republicans around here. AUraptor is the only true Republican I can think of, the rest are mostly libertarian leaning conservatives. I usually vote Republican but probably wont even bother voting from now on. Things are past the point of no return in my opinion. No candidate will be able to change the course enough to avoid financial meltdown. Things will only change now when there's no alternative left and that time is coming sooner than many might want to believe. If I do vote it will be for the candidate that will cut Social Security and Medicare and raise taxes on all Americans not just one group. Any politician that perpetuates the lie that things can be fixed without all of the above is immediately disqualified in my mind and if they do make people face the reality of our situation they are unelectable so whats the point.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 1:40 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


So all those here on RWED: Raptor, Wulf, Kane, Geezer, etc., who have a neverending tirade against "the left" and use every nasty phrase they can think of and attribute every negative to Democrats, and hail the Republican and Tea Party candidates, none of them are Republicans, eh? That's interesting.

We know Raptor has the hots for Palin, Wulf is for Ron Paul, but all of them just adore blaming the left for anything and everything they can think of. So I guess they're just all "anti-Democrats"...in which case, why do they laud the Republican/Tea Party candidates to the heavens?

Is it just because "the left" and the other reasonable people here are in the majority or something? That trolls only like trashing a particular party?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 2:04 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
So all those here on RWED: Raptor, Wulf, Kane, Geezer, etc., who have a neverending tirade against "the left" and use every nasty phrase they can think of and attribute every negative to Democrats, and hail the Republican and Tea Party candidates, none of them are Republicans, eh? That's interesting.

We know Raptor has the hots for Palin, Wulf is for Ron Paul, but all of them just adore blaming the left for anything and everything they can think of. So I guess they're just all "anti-Democrats"...in which case, why do they laud the Republican/Tea Party candidates to the heavens?

Is it just because "the left" and the other reasonable people here are in the majority or something? That trolls only like trashing a particular party?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off





What's funny about this Niki is I can't think of too many "Democrats" on this board, certainly not many IF ANY that are pro-Obama.
I think you are absolutely right about anti-Democrats, but there's plenty of anti-Republicans too. It's the anti-election. "Who are you against most?"

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 2:16 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
If I do vote it will be for the candidate that will cut Social Security and Medicare and raise taxes on all Americans not just one group. Any politician that perpetuates the lie that things can be fixed without all of the above is immediately disqualified in my mind and if they do make people face the reality of our situation they are unelectable so whats the point.



I'd vote for that candidate too btw, trouble is it's so hard to know if they'll actually do what they say. Medicare is a great idea and a huge mess - and I get the feeling it's too complex for mere mortals to put right.

Hmmm... Maybe that's the problem and why there's so much voter apathy - our standards and expectations are too high? The world, governing is much more complex than even 3 terms ago. Too much for one person? Are we so sentimental about the office that we can't think of changing it? Do we have to have a SINGLE *leader*?

So really... NO Republicans here??

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 2:40 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


No, not a lot of Democrats (big "D"), but a goodly number of liberals. I'm not pro-Obama, but I shudder to think where we'd be if McCain/Palin won! But I'll be quoting Kiki a lot for a while no doubt, as she offered a true pearl of wisdom regarding the left and the right, as it shows itself here in RWED:
Quote:

I've noticed an interesting pattern - in Rap, Wulfie, Geezer and a few others - they come and make all sorts of claims, yet when challenged with facts or to back up their claims, they disappear - only to reappear later in another thread with the same spew. Liberals OTOH seem happy to discuss facts all day long. I think this goes beyond 'How Facts Backfire' and political partisanship to a basic relationship with the world.
That's what I've seen here for a long, long time, and where I saw on another Firefly forum I was once on, EVEN WORSE.

I definitely think you've got something about our expectations being too high. For some unfathomable reason, the American people seemed to think Obama WAS some kind of Messiah who could wave a magic wand and fix all the shit Bush and the Neocons brought down around our ears for eight years--and do it in TWO! He didn't, partly because the right decided to fight any and all efforts he and the dems made to do so, and sure enough, everyone thought the Republicans and Tea Partiers would be the messiah instead. Didn't take them even a year to see through that one and realize there was never any intention of dealing with "Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!", and that the candidates they're putting up are a bunch of loons who haven't a hope in HELL of fixing things. So the pendulum swings--and you may be right, it may well swing because of the constant expectation that SOMEONE (besides the someone we already have) MUST be able to fix it all.

People also never seem to grasp that, as you said, no ONE leader CAN fix it all. It takes a good leader (which we haven't had in a long time) WORKING WITH a Congress that actually wants to DO SOMETHING, to (gawd forbid) actually represent their constituents and do things for the good of the country, and that, absent that, no leader's gonna be able to do squat. But we'd rather be led by the noses by whoever can come up with the most visceral wording to make us hate "the other", and go on believing there's a Messiah out there somewhere who can make everything "right"...and when they don't, we hate them...and the pendulum swings.

Medicare and SSI need fixing, fer shore, and they shouldn't cost what they do. On the other hand, if the government kept its bloody HANDS off them, along with fixing it, I believe they'd both do what they were intended to do. We need to stop being the policeman to the world, but not become total isolationists. The country would be tons healthier if there wasn't such a huge gap between rich and poor. Wall Street and the banks know how to play us and we let 'em, investing our life savings in stocks they can manipulate, getting credit card after credit card then complaining about them.

It all takes COMPROMISE...that big, dreaded word the Tea Party has decided we need to do without.

All in all, Americans on the whole seem to be pretty immature and ignorant, don't they? We elect "celebrities" and the guy who sells the best line, who almost always needs to be good looking, say what we want to hear and, on one side, someone you'd like to have a beer with, on the other side, someone who "seems" intelligent, and then sit back and expect them to fix everything.

All this happens again and again, every four years, and we never learn anything. Pretty sad bunch, aren't we?


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 3:01 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
It all takes COMPROMISE...that big, dreaded word the Tea Party has decided we need to do without.



If you believe the Tea Party is standing in the way of fixing Social Security and Medicare you've just proven my point. The Libs have based their politics for years on scaring old people that the evil Republicans are going to take their Social Security and look were it's got us. Seniors are going to face inevitable drastic cuts now where if we had just slowed the cost of living increases a few years ago we'd have many more years to fix the problem. It was a good political tactic and stopped the evil Republicans cold, but at the same time it made the programs destined for inevitable collapse. Your constant insistence that raising taxes on the rich is the solution just proves that you still aren’t willing to accept the reality of our situation, and you are in good company, I think 75% of Americans are right there with you.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 3:58 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


I got news for you Kirk; the Republicans have been BENT on doing away with Social Security ever since it was created. If you don't know that, you haven't been paying attention. It's not a scare tactic; read a few books and you'll find that out. No Republican is interested in “fixing” Social Security, unless by “fixing” they mean forcing future senior Americans into abject poverty. Which is pretty much what they mean. They won’t rest until they achieve this. They won’t “compromise” on Social Security, they've been trying to get rid of it since it started!

Let's go back in time...remember when Bush wanted to privatize it? From 2004:
Quote:

In the upcoming presidential campaign debates it will be interesting to see how the candidates discuss Social Security. George Bush will claim, as he has many times, that his purpose is not to cut Social Security. He may even accuse Democrats of scaring older folks with talk of cutting benefits. But the fact is that Republicans, indeed, do want to reduce benefits; in fact, many conservatives hate nearly everything done in Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, including Social Security.

Paul Krugman, an economist and columnist for the New York Times, has clearly noted all this in various columns. He has written about Bush's proposal for private Social Security accounts as part of his "ownership society" concept. If employees are allowed to place part of their payments in private accounts that will mean less funds available to pay benefits to others; that is going to cost the government many billions of dollars so there will be great pressure to lower the benefits. Bush never talks about that when he raises the topic, another major way he misleads the public.

Krugman in the New York Times Magazine wrote an article which talks about Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan's approach to Social Security, how it has hurt working folks. Remember that it was Greenspan's support for Bush's tax cuts that helped convince congress to adopt them. I recommend reading the whole article, but here is a section:

Before Greenspan became Fed chairman, he headed a commission that recommended changes in Social Security to secure its future. The most important recommendation, adopted by Congress, was for an increase in the payroll tax -- a regressive tax that falls much more heavily on lower- and middle-income families than it does on the well-off. The ostensible purpose was to generate a surplus within the Social Security system, building up a trust fund to pay benefits once the baby boomers retire.

That was the bait; now Greenspan has pulled the switch. The sequence looks like this: he pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used the overall surplus, mainly coming from Social Security, to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to maintain the tax cuts while cutting Social Security benefits. He never said, ''Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so that we can give big tax cuts to the rich!'' But that's the end result of his advice. http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?pid=1365 facts are:

Costs of Social Security are not unsupportable by the federal budget. SS has its own budget. If we can just keep the government's hands OFF it!

The program won’t have to turn to Congress for help or cut benefits, which the program’s actuaries don’t expect to happen under 2037 — and there’s a significant chance, according to their estimates, that that day will never come.

While it is true that a lot of Boomers will be applying for SS in the near future, they will increase payouts from 4.8 percent of GDP to 6 percent of GDPm which is significantly LESS than the rise in post 9/11 defense spending which was considered such a non-crisis financially that Bush was able to go ahead with his tax cuts for the rich.

It's not a fear tactic. It's real. It's been real ever since Social Security was CREATED, for heaven's sake, and there have been numerous attempts to get rid of it...always by Republicans. You probably won't bother to read the following, but someone might:
Quote:

The recent Bush plan to allow private retirement accounts has not been well received. You might think that the debate is over, but it isn’t. A provisions to start up the private accounts program was quietly included in the President’s budget for 2007.

Think about what is being proposed on a grand scale. With private accounts, the premise is that citizens can do better at investing than the government. In all but the most rare individual circumstances that is absurd, but, arguments about your individual merit as an investor are not relevant. If you are that great an investor, Social Security taxes and Social Security benefits are not going to be of consequence to you. Even if you are a great investor, Social Security is your ultimate diversification, being based on the entire economy. It depends only on whether the government and Social Security survive.

What is important is what the premise implies. It implies that Social Security is irrelevant, or more, that people would be better off without it. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, it might be useful for you to think about where the motive to make that assertion comes from. Did it come from people that like the Social Security system? Obviously not.

Who has an interest in putting and end to Social Security? Those who opposed the creation of Social Security in the first place:

“The promise of secure retirements is a "hoax." Taxes paid by workers are "wasted" by the government rather than invested prudently. And "the so-called reserve fund ... is no reserve at all" because it contains nothing but government IOUs.

President Bush? No, Republican presidential candidate Alf Landon and his party's platform in 1936.

Seattle Times, Sunday, February 06, 2005: Republicans hate a lot of things, but by far, the thing they hate the most is socialism. That is because they fear it the most. Social Security is not strictly socialism. Socialism means state or collective control of the means of production. To the extent that SSA taxes are partially paid by employers, Social Security does have some impact on the means of production. However if you think about it, Social Security is a tax on employees, not employers. The part paid by employers is simply window dressing to make employees feel better, that the employer is picking up some of the tab. They aren’t really, SSA is just part of the employees total compensation.

I suppose in the mostly dark recesses of the Republican mind, if Social Security were abolished, they think that they would be able to cut 7% from their payroll. That is infantile. While nominally payroll seems to go up when SSA taxes are raised, as in 1982, payrolls are adjusted to market levels in short order. In other words, Social Security has cost business little or nothing in the long run. It is a tax on workers as opposed to an income tax.

The main reason Social Security is the preeminent conservative angst is that income taxes are ultimately going to be required to actually pay part of Social Security benefits starting in about 2015. This is because the Social Security Trust Fund is held in government bonds, which must be redeemed to pay benefits.

If you examine the chicanery centered on the SSA taxes for the last twenty five years, you find some interesting facts. When it was instituted, Social Security operated by collecting about what it needed to meet current benefit payments. What came in was paid out. In 1982, that all changed. Greenspan and Holton proposed that SSA taxes be accelerated to save up for the pending retirement of the baby boomers. It must have seemed like a reasonable idea at the time.

The Greenspan plan sunk accelerated collections of SSA tax into government bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund. The result was essentially force feeding of the government coffers. Government grew and income taxes went down financed by a long term debt obligation whose repayment horizon lay in the distant future.

Under Clinton, the force feeding of SSA collections into government began to be referred to as the Social Security Surplus. Clinton used it to pay down other national debt, rightly assessing that in order for the debt to the Trust Fund to be repaid, we would need a solvent government. Paying down the extra-Social Security debt and balancing the budget seemed to assure that the government’s indebtedness to the Greenspan plan could be serviced.

No wonder they called Greenspan the “Maestro”. Did he or did he not foresee what the results have been, that increasing taxes were just being deferred until later? Did he foresee that the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund would be placed at risk by future politics? I expect he did. I expect that he foresaw that given the apparent surplus created by the SSA tax that politicians would not be able to resist lowering income taxes. It seems to have been a gamble that the political environment might change and that it would pay off for the wealthy. It has, and we are facing the question of whether we will be able to pay back the money lent to government by the Social Security Trust Fund.

So no matter that the SSA taxes have been spent on the operation of government, allowing lower income taxes in the past, the reality of the debt obligations of government to Social Security is coming home to roost. Republicans just simply do not want to honor the pay back the money that allowed them to avoid higher taxation in the past.

Mr. Greenspan also played a not so amusing game with Social Security Cost Of Living Adjustments (COLA). In introducing measures to reduce the reported CPI, he engineered a compounding reduction in the benefits paid to current recipients. COLA is based on the CPI and if the CPI is cooked, which it has been, to show less inflation, Social Security pays out less. By some estimates, Social Security payments should be 40% higher than the are now. That’s not chump change.

Now Mr. Bush has come along and thrown the country into staggering debt and continues to operate government at a deficit. Why, if Clinton “understood” the problem, does Bush not? Well Bush does understand the problem but he has a different agenda. He does not intend to honor the government’s obligation to the Social Security Trust Fund, or at best, intends to use the baby boomer bubble to argue that the system is flawed and should be permanently scraped. Scrapped in favor of private accounts, or even better, nothing.

So if Mr. Greenspan has concocted the current state of the Social Security system you have to wonder what his motivation was. If Mr. Bush is trying to destroy it due to insolvency, you also have to wonder why. And we are back to the point that Republicans hate Social Security. They also hate Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Public Schools and just about any social spending you can think of. Republicans like money. Democrats like money too but seem to be more able to part with some of it from time to time.

Essentially, Social Security is the symbol to Republicans that they are losing the class war. The symbol used to be unions, but the tables have turned on that. Republicans take class warfare very seriously because class warfare is about money. So while Social Security does not really have any impact on payroll or the bottom line, they view it with suspicion because it feels like socialism. And, in the not too distant future, the tax cuts that they have been enjoying are going to stop in order to pay back the Trust Fund.

Only God and the Republican National Committee know how far the Republicans will go in rolling back the social programs born in the Progressive Era. http://mondaymorningeconomist.com/ssacontinued.htm rest my case.

ETA: I know about COLA, I live with it because I'm on Social Security. It wouldn't pay for a day's worthy of groceries.


Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 6:06 PM

FREMDFIRMA



The irony is that they'd like to do away with that whole giving it back part of social security, but would fight tooth and claw against that whole taking it from your paycheck part - ergo once again that idiotic Randroid philosophy of "how dare you demand what you paid for!" raises it's ugly head and I can't for the life of me see where any rational person would be OKAY with paying through the nose for a product or service they're not allowed to have or use.

Which is, of course, one of the reason I believe that particular brand of conservatism is a mental illness.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, August 15, 2011 7:40 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I consider myself an independent who leans right on "moral" issues and leans left on "social" issues. I don't fancy any of the Repub candidates running. How about Riona 2012? :) (Ignore the fact that I'm not old enough yet)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:52 AM

STORYMARK


So, that's a no show from all the conservatives.... except some "sky is falling" from Kirk.

Interesting.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 9:57 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by RionaEire:
I consider myself an independent who leans right on "moral" issues and leans left on "social" issues. I don't fancy any of the Repub candidates running. How about Riona 2012? :) (Ignore the fact that I'm not old enough yet)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya




Problem is, Riona, I don't fancy any of the Democrat candidates running, either.

More than likely going to come down to "who do you hate the least?", which is a piss-poor method for choosing a leader.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, August 17, 2011 8:02 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


A Quicko a chara, too often that's exactly what it comes down to, choosing whom you believe to be the lesser of the evils. I don't like that at all either. I think we should all vote for the "other" box, the more people do that the more of a statement we can send that we're fed up with the choices being offered and we want something different, either that or we all write Mal's name in the box, I suppose the same thing would be accomplished.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2011 1:35 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


A few times in my life I've had the opportunity to vote for whom I thought was the better candidate. Ross Perot in '92, for instance. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen.

At the moment, Ron Paul really looks to be the best candidate in the race, on either side.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2011 3:15 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


I think Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman are the least objectionable to me. They seem to cater a bit less to the Christian Conservatives, And Paul's anti-abortion stand seems to reflect his ethical viewpoint rather than a bid for pro-life votes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2011 6:00 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
A few times in my life I've had the opportunity to vote for whom I thought was the better candidate. Ross Perot in '92, for instance. It doesn't happen often, but it DOES happen.

At the moment, Ron Paul really looks to be the best candidate in the race, on either side.



Ross Perot??? Heh, me too. On either side of that election I have been completely ambivalent or totally disappointed.

Ron Paul is brilliant, but Uhhmerica just isn't ready for him - that and he's a perfect double for a character actor that I can't quite place, always played scary bad guys...

And it's not Ian Mckellan



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, August 18, 2011 7:39 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:

Ross Perot??? Heh, me too. On either side of that election I have been completely ambivalent or totally disappointed.




Exactly. I'm proud to say that I've never voted for a Clinton, ever. Not even in a primary. '92 I went for Perot; 96 I stayed home, since it was pretty obvious that Clinton was going to win it, and Perot was in-again-out-again and just looking downright crazy by that point, and Dole was... well, DOLE.

Had Hillary won the nomination, I might've held my nose and voted for her, but I'm glad I never had to find out...

They both seem to suffer from that too-slick-by-half sleaziness that afflicts John Edwards and Slick Rick Perry as well. That look that tells me, "No, I really WOULDN'T buy a used car from these people."

And if I'm not willing to buy a used car from 'em, it's not likely I'm buying their vision of America's future, either.

Sadly, nobody's going to primary Obama on the Dem side, but Hillary's probably the only one of the bunch with the balls to even think about it.

Sure would be nice to have the opportunity to vote for someone like Ron Paul. I most likely will in the primaries, just in the (probably vain) hopes that he'll beat Rick Perry in Texas, which would be a crippling, if not fatal blow to Perry's campaign.

Imagine that - Kaneman and Kwicko on the same side of a political issue!

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:54 - 3414 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Fri, March 29, 2024 02:49 - 11 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:45 - 56 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:33 - 2075 posts
Long List of Celebrities that are Still Here
Fri, March 29, 2024 00:00 - 1 posts
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL