2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Race

[Gwynplaine]

I posted this to my social group but it's hardly used so I figured I'll transplant it to this new subforum.

The candidacy for the Republican race has been going on what seems like ages now like its own reality show. To begin with Mitt Romney was always the presumed favorite, then Cain became popular before promptly dropping out amongst scandal and an odd Pokemon speech. Now the popular tides are sampling every new flavor of the week in a hopeless exercise to see who's least terrible. After these first few primaries Mitt Romney has still yet clung on as the consistent candidate.

Historically the primaries aren't exactly an indicator a candidate will win the candidacy. In 2008 for example the loathsome Mike Huckabee won the Iowa primary. Now we should begin to see candidates gradually dropping out as it becomes narrowed down.

Here's some Youtube links for most past debates
1 May 5th 2011 - Greenville S.C.
2 June 13th 2011 - Manchester N.H.
3 August 11th 2011 - Des Moines Iowa
4 September 7th 2011 - Simi Valley California
5 September 12th 2011 - Tampa Florida
6 September 22 2011 - Orlando Florida
7 October 11th 2011 - Hanover N.H.
8 October 18th 2011 - Las Vegas Nevada


So if you have been following the candidacy what are your thoughts on the candidates? Which do you favor (or at least would you stomach voting for)? And what do you think are the assets and drawbacks of each candidate?

[Mazmaz]

Mitt Romney... consistent

teehee

So if you have been following the candidacy what are your thoughts on the candidates? Which do you favor (or at least would you stomach voting for)? And what do you think are the assets and drawbacks of each candidate?

Ron Paul. He'll be terrible for your country, but he'll be awesome for the rest of the world.

[Gwynplaine]

teehee

Yeah, my clarification brain alarm went off even as I was typing that. What I meant was, popularly consistent (not logically or ideologically).

[Gwynplaine]

[djzombie]

I'm happy that sock puppet has no chance of ever getting elected.

God forbid anyone be happy, everyone must be forced to be as miserable as the next guy.

[Ragnus]

@Gwynplaine's video: . . .

[Ashmada]

So if you have been following the candidacy what are your thoughts on the candidates? Which do you favor (or at least would you stomach voting for)? And what do you think are the assets and drawbacks of each candidate?

Bachmann or Santorum. For teh lulz.

[Dantrag]

Bachmann bowed out. After watching the vid of Santorum, he's actually the exact opposite of Ron Paul. In the way that he would shit on the constitution and replace it with whatever verses of the bible he found to fit his fucked up ideology.

[Ragnus]

Well, yeah. That was kind of his entire platform even before that video.

He's all about a Christian Theocratical America.

[Indalecia]

Well damn. And here I thought the worst thing about Santorum was the definition.

Its fun when religious nutjobs think they should run important shit, huh?

[Elvis]

Rick Santorum on Israeli Settlements via ThinkProgress interview

[Dantrag]

The person asking the questions didn't seem to prepared.

[Elvis]

He wasn't. Didn't know when the war began. Didn't know it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The analogies are irrelevant. No country recognizes the OT as 'Judea and Samaria' and Israeli legal experts prior to the launching of the settlement enterprise warned that the occupation would violate the Geneva conventions. Our own legal experts in an old memo released a couple of years ago echoed the same sentiment.

But it's more important to get Santorum's opinion unhindered by any kind of debate.

[Gwynplaine]

Santorum is without a doubt the worst of the lot. And it takes a unique type of bad to make this lot of politicians look decent by comparison. Here's my rundown of the candidates.


=Mitt Romney=
Comes off as a totally plastic Johnny Bravo politician. He's totally mediocre and manages to pose like he is saying something great without really saying anything definite. Has no real big plans for a budget or changes he would make to government.
Pros:
His positions on social issues are decent (for a Republican). He refused to sign the Pro-Life Pledge. Like J.F.K.'s Catholicism, Romney's Mormonism is not trusted by many Christians and so his religious crazyness may be kept in check under such scrutiny.

Cons: Instituted statewide Massachusetts RomneyCare similar to ObamaCare. He has no solid positions on anything useful, he only seems to reflect back what the people next to him at the moment seem to respond to. In that way he's very similar to Obama but less ideological and more a mushy populist. He has no clue how economics work, and his rhetoric sounds like he would favor protectionism. He also has a strange obsession with China I find unsettling.


=Newt Ginrich=
Pros: Potentially strong on national defense.

Cons: He comes off as a technocrat who doesn't want to get rid of bad laws he just wants to tweak and update them in a way he thinks is more efficient. He thinks America allows for freedom *of* religion, not freedom *from* religion. He signed the Pro-Life statement to oppose abortion. He also clearly has benefited from Freddie and Fannie by getting huge chunks of money for favors.


=Ron Paul=
Pros: Knows his Austrian economics, generally economically literate. Opposes the Federal Reserve and ABC agencies. Opposes the "drug war".

Cons: A worse than suicidal foreign policy which blames America first. He favors statism of the state government as a dodge to protect individual rights. He supports Personhood knowing fully as an OBGYN what that would do to women. Also signed the Pro-Life pledge.


=Rick Santorum=
Pros: He has a large head that would be easy to make out from inside a sniper scope.

Cons: Utterly theocratic. He literally thinks the family is the fundamental unit of society, and not individuals. Individuals should be subordinated by duty to their family because Americans shouldn't be able to "do whatever they want". He would reinstate Don't Ask Don't Tell and continue engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan. He seems to view war like a pimply-faced jock who wants to "beat" the other guys for its own sake and with no clear guidance.


=Rick Perry=
It's hard not to listen to him talk and think anything other than Bush 3.
Pros: His plan to simplify taxes may be welcome.

Cons: Heavily religious to the point he called for prayer to improve the economy and end a drought. Dogmatic about immigration law. He comes off to me as Bush 3 except with an unsettling amount of power lust in an F.D.R. style fashion. Signed the Pro-Life pledge and opposes abortion.


Essentially they're all bad in different areas with perhaps one aspect where they have decent strengths. With the exception of Santorum who is consistently abysmal. Unfortunately my favored pick would be Gary Johnson but he had no chance, so I'll look forward to seeing if he improves his name recognition in future elections.

[Elvis]

Blame America first is your characterization of Ron Paul's foreign policy?

[Demosthenes11]

con for romney is romneycare? the fuck are you smoking

[Elvis]

Oh this was the WPost article Santorum clearly did not read (in addition to the Theodor Meron's legal opinion):

1979 State Dept. Legal Opinion Raises New Questions About Israeli Settlements - washingtonpost.com

Thirty years ago, the State Department legal adviser issued an opinion in response to an inquiry from Congress: The establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories "is inconsistent with international law."

The opinion cited Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states that an occupying power "shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Israel has insisted that the Geneva Convention does not apply to settlers and broadly contests assertions of the settlements' illegality.

Despite the passage of time, the legal opinion, issued during the Carter administration, has never been revoked or revised. President Ronald Reagan said he disagreed with it -- he called the settlements "not illegal" -- but his State Department did not seek to issue a new opinion.

[...]"As far as I know, I don't think it has ever been rescinded or challenged by any legal officer of the United States government," said Herbert J. Hansel, the former legal adviser who wrote the opinion. "Ronald Reagan expressed his opinion. But whatever you think of him, he was obviously not a lawyer. It still stands as the only definitive opinion of the U.S. government from a legal standpoint."

[Dimmauk]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/12/opinio...x.html?npt=NP1

WTF?!

Romney's father, George, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, and so was my grandfather, Roman.

Que? You didn't know that Mitt Romney was half-Mexican? It's true. In fact, if he makes it to the White House, in addition to becoming the first Mormon in the Oval Office, he could also be the nation's first Hispanic president.


Don't laugh. Technically, Romney is just as "Mexican" as former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who was born of a Mexican mother and American father. When Richardson ran for the White House in 2008, he was often touted by the media as someone who would become the nation's first Hispanic president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled the United States and crossed into Mexico in 1885 to escape religious persecution. He helped build the Mormon enclave of Colonia Juarez in Chihuahua.

Miles Park Romney never became a Mexican citizen, and neither did his son, Gaskell, or grandson, George. They were all denied Mexican citizenship because statutes on the books in Mexico denied that right to American settlers and their offspring.

Speaking to the crowd in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney compared his father's story to those of countless other immigrants who have come to this country seeking economic opportunity.

"My grandfather, a Mexican citizen, also came to the United States legally as a child in the early 1900s with his family, trying to escape the chaos of the Mexican Revolution. It was during the same time that Romney's grandfather, Gaskell, returned to the United States with his family, also legally and presumably for the same reason."

Is that a Pro or Con?

[Dantrag]

Haha, I just read that a few hours ago. It's a CON, why do you think he's keeping quiet about it. You can't be non-christian AND another race and expect to win the Republican primary.

[Dimmauk]

Haha, I just read that a few hours ago. It's a CON, why do you think he's keeping quiet about it. You can't be non-christian AND another race and expect to win the Republican primary.

If it turns out he is closet gay, that would be the trifecta of No for most GOP voters.