Early Republican Candidates

Yep, it's starting to get to be that time again. A presidential election looms large. Sure, it's still 19 months away, but it's always interesting to get a first rough look at where people stand. The Wall Street Journal/NBC poll conducted recently had an interesting result, here's the list:

Mitt Romney 21%
Donald Trump 17%
Mike Huckabee 17%
Newt Gingrich 11%
Sarah Palin 10%
Tim Pawlenty 6%
Michele Bachmann 5%
Rick Santorum 3%
Haley Barbour 1%

What's that? Donald Trump tied for 2nd with Huckabee? Yeah, somewhat surprising unless you're one of the few who even realizes he's considering a candidacy. Who knows if there's anything to be made of this just yet but it's certainly worth keeping an eye on. If Trump were to go all in with a serious run, he's got the cash supply to blow everyone else away - without having to fund raise a single dime.

Personally from what I've been hearing lately, Trump would kill Obama in a serious debate and has the no nonsense approach sorely lacking among the others in the field. He's certainly not afraid to say it like it is and has surprised a number of conservative commentators with his openness and candor. Especially on foreign policy issues.

I don't really think Mitt Romney stands a chance in a more serious run. The media's absolute hatred of Palin would do her more harm than good. Bachmann is a solid Tea Party candidate but she's still relatively unknown. Gingrich is getting old, Huckabee doesn't seem like he's serious about running, and who cares about the rest of these guys?

Though I still hold to the belief that any of these people could wipe the floor with Obama after the mess he's made of things. If Mike from Behr (you know who you are) is out there and reading, I'll bet you a pizza on this one again :)
.........................
RIP United States of America

July 1776 - November 2012.

       
« Change
Commodore 64 Comeback »

Posted on Apr 6, 2011 6:34 pm by Samson in: | 228 comment(s) [Closed]
Comments
If Trump does run, and he turns out to be a decent candidate-it won't be because he comes with his own funding. Remember, it didn't help Linda MacMahon or what-ever-her-name-was from Ebay. Both lost in landslides. Also, there is a difference between being a famous entrepeneur commenting on the issues of the day and someone who's making a serious bid for public office.

Both Bachman and Palin have made to many public statements of ignorance to be taken seriously. Palin's a good running mate, but that's about it.

       
Meg Whitman you mean? Her problem was that she was a weak candidate who supports illegal aliens. Not that she didn't have enough money. Of course, even then, we're talking about orders of magnitude difference between her and Trump.

As far as Palin or Bachmann supposedly being ignorant, don't let the media lead you by the nose on that one. They could both squash Obama in a proper debate. Palin's biggest problem was being paired up with a weak candidate.

Trump doesn't seem like the type to go on talk shows and say one thing and then turn around and claim something different under different circumstances. You don't get to become a billionaire by doing that and it's obvious he's a man of character by looking at how well his daughter was raised.

       
Trump doesn't seem like the type to go on talk shows and say one thing and then turn around and claim something different under different circumstances. You don't get to become a billionaire by doing that and it's obvious he's a man of character by looking at how well his daughter was raised.

What I actually meant was: There's some opinions you're allowed to express as a private citizen that your not allowed as a public official; and Trump has lots of them.

In fairness, when Palin looks stupid, it's because she mispoke. I understand what she meant, but it's hard to NOT take pot shots at her anyway. Bachman hasn't really said anything stupid that has anything to do with actual policy, but there's a you tube video of her where she's talking about Harry Potter being an instruction manual of satanism.

Finally, Obama seems to be able to hold his own in a debate. Most of what he says may or may not be accurate, but he does sound good saying it. Unfortunately, in this country, you don't have to have the best interests of your constituents at heart; you only have to *sound* like you do.

       
Edited by dallen68 on Apr 6, 2011 7:10 pm
I weep for the usefulness of Youtube search when "Michele Bachmann Harry Potter" returns page after page of links to model trains. WTF?

       
She made the people that put it up, take it down. A couple years ago, she was running for some office and her opposition got a hold of a video from a Sunday School class she was teaching and put it up on you tube. She carefully explained everywhere she went that that (the video) was from years ago; but the damage was done. Her campaign manager filed a DCMA on it, but by then millions of people had seen it. I've only seen a small part of it myself, as a part of a more general video about the fundamentalist lunatic fringe.

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that if she emerges as even a remotely strong candidate, it will MAGICALLY re-appear. Maybe only for a day or two, but that will be enough. Michelle Titanic Bachmann.

       
I'm not convinced. There's not even any evidence after several pages of Google searches that any such thing ever existed. This is the internet, things like that never vanish once they're out. If it DOES show up again, I'd be highly skeptical of it as a complete fake.

       
You know, at least in 2008 I could respect McCain, at least until he made himself unrespectable. But seriously? This is the best the Republicans can come up with? I guess I can respect that at least we're being honest about the whole corporate shills/religious fundies thing, but this kind of slate is pretty much forcing me to vote for Obama by default here. Granted it's almost certain I'll vote a straight Democratic ticket at this point, things being what they are, but to go down the list:

1. Romney - The best of the lot, but man, you thought Kerry was a flip-flopper? I can't even figure out what Romney thinks about anything these days.
2. Trump - Yes, he's been famous since the 80s, and made a lot of money. These are qualifications for the presidency why?
3. Huckabee - Yay, religious fundamentalism! Also I disagree with him on assorted topics.
4. Gingrich - He deserves to go down for what he did in the 90s. Added bonus, he's completely incoherent.
5. Palin - I don't even know where to begin, but "crazy," "frighteningly incoherent," and "scarily cultish" are all by themselves disqualifiers.
6. Pawlenty - Has the virtue that I don't know a damn thing about him.
7. Bachmann - Utterly crazy.
8. Santorum - Woo, bigotry!
9. Barbour - Kind of embodies everything I don't really like about the South.

Yeah, there's a whole lot I can get behind here.

       
I managed to find a few brief references to Bachman's statements on Harry Potter on Google, but mostly forum type stuff; so nothing reliable.
Moving on:

Actually, wasn't Trump famous for being BANKRUPT in the 80's?
There are those who think Gingrich got a raw deal when he was impeached, so that may actually work for, rather than against, him.
Plus Trump and Palin both have the disadvantage of being reality show stars, now. They might lose because they're audience doesn't want to mis an episode. Although "Celebrity Apprentice White House" would actually be an interesting show. A whole new cabinet every 12 weeks! Woo-Hoo!

       
forcing me to vote for Obama by default

Dwip, I think we all know this was a given from the start. I doubt it would make a slight bit of difference who we picked to run in the end, you'd still vote straight ticket Democrat, just like I'll be voting straight ticket Republican. Though how you can honestly vote for the man after what he's done to this country in the last two years is simply beyond comprehension.

       
Edited by Samson on Apr 6, 2011 11:06 pm
I can't really say much here because I don't really know anything about most of these people. Except that Gingrich and Palin are extremely undesirable candidates. Otherwise, these people are largely new to me.

What interests me is how the presidential selection system in America varies from Australia. Down here the elected members of the party choose their leader. The system in America seems rather convulted and over the top in comparison. Obviously the Australia's far smaller which makes thing easier, but still, the candidate selection system seems to cause more harm than good for the various candidates running for presidency.

       
Conspiracy hat on: It's all a show for the media and the people. The winners have been decided for years to come.

       
Shush. Our squirrel alien masters don't want us discussing the Wedgy's plots like this.

       
Ok, I'll be quiet. I don't want to expose either of you to.

       
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #14 Apr 7, 2011 5:33 am
I would like to learn more on Trump. It is refreshing to not have a career political running.

       
Vladaar [Anon] said:
Comment #15 Apr 7, 2011 5:41 am
I don't agree that just anyone can beat Obama. There are a ton of stupid people out there who don't follow the news but vote. Why else does his poll numbers always stay so high? One of the wizards rules Richard learned from that book series. People are stupid. Seems to be the case in America too.

       
Someone would have to be a complete moron to be unable to beat Obama at this point. Of the list we have so far my two personal top picks would be Trump or Gingrich. Maybe they should become a ticket. :)

       
That would actually be a good ticket. I still think you underestimate Obama's propaganda skills, however.

       
Perhaps, but I have faith that enough people are awake now that he won't be able to use them effectively enough to win reelection. He'll be another Carter.

       
Anonymous [Anon] said:
Comment #19 Apr 7, 2011 4:32 pm
Obama and the loony left wing of the Open borders, Multiculturalism wing of the Democrat party must be the only species on the face of the earth that cannot or will not learn from experience, even Animals learn from experience!

The Socialist countries in Europe , Britain, France, Germany, Greece etc. have finally recognized Socialism and the Welfare State with Massive Invasion of uneducated third world parasites flooding in to get on the public dole, does not work and are cutting back government, including numbers, wages, & benefits in order to survive as a Nation and returning to capitalism.

While here in the USA Obama and the Democrats are taking the USA to a Third World socialist paradise in spite of proof all over the world and in the failed Blue States here that it does not work.

Illinois, Calif, New York, New Jersey, all Blue States that have been controlled by Democrat Majorities for years and long enough to try their spending and taxing that is driving business to other States or Countries while buying votes of public union members by giving wages and benefits that is bankrupting the government and pandering to illegal Aliens with citizens tax money, are now seeing the results, all are bordering on bankruptcy.

Now Obama is following the same blueprint on a vastly bigger scale for the rest of American using 100,s of billion of the simulate money to reward Democrat supporters and to keep the under worked and overpaid public unions in jobs and buy Workfare & Welfare votes!

The same multi-trillion dollar con job Obama is attempting, by open borders and giving Amnesty to the invading horde of Criminals & Uneducated Prolific breeding third world parasites & with chain immigration all the ones still left in Mexico to buy 10,s of millions of welfare votes for the Democrat party with money borrowed from China while bankrupting this Nation.

With the future & further goal of turning the USA into a Spanish speaking Third World Slum modeled on Mexico but controlled Lock, Stock & Barrel by the Socialist/Democrat party Dictatorship of the United Sates of Mexico!

       
Obama and the loony left wing of the Open borders, Multiculturalism wing of the Democrat party must be the only species on the face of the earth that cannot or will not learn from experience, even Animals learn from experience!

When I was a kid, I was taught immigrants are "assimilated" into our culture before they become citizens. WTF is the difference between multi-culturalism and traditional assimilation? I know that it's *not* that you get to keep your original culture, because that doesn't "disappear" with assimilation. What does with assimilation happen is the immigrant picks up the best of our culture; and our culture picks up the best of theirs. What I think it *might* be is: Ignore the dominant culture, force your culture on everyone else, and have a bitch fit about 'intoleranths" (you have to say it that way, according to Rush Limbaugh) when everyone else doesn't make way for you.

       
Edited by dallen68 on Apr 7, 2011 5:24 pm
I'd say the difference between multi-culturalism and assimilation is that with the former, you end up with lots of little enclaves of foreigners who are "just here". They speak their own language, conduct business according to their own customs, and scream racism if anyone suggests they should blend in.

Assimilation means you come here, you learn our culture, our history, our language. You learn what it means to be a citizen. You learn our customs, but of course you're more than free to practice your own so long as you don't expect the rest of us to do the same. You conduct business according to our laws and the way we do things.

It should be clear which one of these is better for the country in the long run. Europe is finding out that a bunch of little enclaves doesn't work. We're not old enough yet to have learned that lesson and are apparently determined to learn it the hard way like our European friends have. Which means a whole lot of blood and pain over the next 50 years or so as we go about learning it. Maybe to our detriment if we're not careful.

       
The Socialist countries in Europe , Britain, France, Germany, Greece etc. have finally recognized Socialism and the Welfare State with Massive Invasion of uneducated third world parasites flooding in to get on the public dole, does not work and are cutting back government, including numbers, wages, & benefits in order to survive as a Nation and returning to capitalism.


I can guarunte you that, unless you have relatives already living in the given country, the only way a person from the third world can get into any of those European Nations is if they have skills which the country needs. There is no 'Massive invasion of uneducated third world parasites' into these countries; they're not like America, and do not get a tide of low paid illegal immigrants doing manual labor. There are of course serious problems with illegal immigrants within European Countries who are unwanted, however, these nations are not complacent in deporting them, and certainly don't have their public sectors crippled by these people.

Do these European Countries have problems economic; yes. Is it because of socialist aspects of their government becoming bloated; in some instances, yes. Is it because of a Massive Invasion of uneducated third world parasites flooding in to get on the public dole; no.

While here in the USA Obama and the Democrats are taking the USA to a Third World socialist paradise in spite of proof all over the world and in the failed Blue States here that it does not work.


I'm sure you'd find Australia interesting.

Samson said:

I'd say the difference between multi-culturalism and assimilation is that with the former, you end up with lots of little enclaves of foreigners who are "just here". They speak their own language, conduct business according to their own customs, and scream racism if anyone suggests they should blend in.

Assimilation means you come here, you learn our culture, our history, our language. You learn what it means to be a citizen. You learn our customs, but of course you're more than free to practice your own so long as you don't expect the rest of us to do the same. You conduct business according to our laws and the way we do things.

It should be clear which one of these is better for the country in the long run. Europe is finding out that a bunch of little enclaves doesn't work. We're not old enough yet to have learned that lesson and are apparently determined to learn it the hard way like our European friends have. Which means a whole lot of blood and pain over the next 50 years or so as we go about learning it. Maybe to our detriment if we're not careful.


Australia warded off people that weren't white and english speaking for almost two hundred years based on the philosphy you've just described (well, with a rather large topping of raw racism, but anyway). But after all that, when the doors were finally opened for people of different cultures to come in. none of those fears of multi-culturalism damaging society came true. The majority of immigrants tend to assimilate themselves anyway in the process of adapting to life in Australia, which ultimately ment that the problem didn't come to exist.

(also, assimilation is traditionally used in Australia to refer to stirpping migrants of their cultures and customs and whatever and fully replacing them with Australian ones, but I get what you mean)

That said, as I understand, in some European countries they've had much more trouble with difficult racial minorities forming, for one reason or another. So...yeah. Multi-cultrualism can and can't work...

But more on the point of immigrants from different cultures conducting their business in accordance with our laws (and to a lesser extent, certain core values of our cultures), I 100% agree with that. To make that full face burqa thing the example, wearing that conflicts with the basis of facial recognition our society revloves around, so you can't really take part in our society and wear it.




       
prettyfly said:

There is no 'Massive invasion of uneducated third world parasites' into these countries

That's not what the Europeans said. Why else would the Europeans even be mentioning these people if they weren't a problem? Let's nevermind the fact that they have a very serious problem with infiltration from muslim nations.

As for assimilation, I think we have two different versions of what that means. I'm not talking about a policy of xenophobia, which is what it sounds like you think I was describing. I'm talking about immigrants who come here, bring their talents and their culture, but don't isolate themselves into enclaves and/or bring the problems from their countries of origin with them. If they want to live like they did back home, why bother coming?

Our biggest problem of course is that the Democrats have made a propaganda issue out of illegal immigration here. They cry racism and hatemonger whenever someone suggests doing something about it - unless it's one of them wanting to grant these people full blown amnesty. That's certainly not going to solve anything here and they know it. They just want more dependent voters. No more racist organization exists in this country than the progressive Democrats.

Multi-culturalism has already failed here as anyone living in California can attest. We spend ourselves silly printing shit in 18 different languages rather than making it a mandatory condition of entry that you learn English. Nobody is saying turn yourself white, just that if you come here, we expect to be able to communicate properly with you without needing an army of interpreters.

       
Samson said:

That's not what the Europeans said. Why else would the Europeans even be mentioning these people if they weren't a problem? Let's nevermind the fact that they have a very serious problem with infiltration from muslim nations.


There is a problem to some degree, but its hardly crippling their economies. Its sounds like they are trying to make excuses for their economic woes which really come from poorly managed progressive reforms and policies.

And also, keep in mind that the problem immigrants are illegally entering the country; though generally the more left wing a government the more complacent they are at taking care of such issues.

Samson said:

As for assimilation, I think we have two different versions of what that means.


Indeed. The reason is that 'assimilation' was a fairly infamous government policy developed to deal with Australian Natives which was designed to destroy their culture, so it aquired a different meaning to its general use in the rest of the world.

Samson said:

Multi-culturalism has already failed here as anyone living in California can attest. We spend ourselves silly printing shit in 18 different languages rather than making it a mandatory condition of entry that you learn English. Nobody is saying turn yourself white, just that if you come here, we expect to be able to communicate properly with you without needing an army of interpreters.


That's quite true; that last thing you want is minorities that don't speak English which then become large enough to demand that special provisions be made for them so they don't need to speak English. My country does allow people who can't speak English to enter though provided they have direct family relations who are already citizens of the country, but unfortunately doesn't have a protocol that forces them to start learning English once they arrive. However most of these people learn the language anyway so there isn't to much of a problem.

       
Here in California, and the south-west United States in general, it has become a major problem. Mostly it's people that cross the border from the South that have no intentions of establishing residency or becoming citizens; but then they have children here, and the children don't speak English, either.

We used to have sponsorship laws here,too, but apparently they've gone bye-bye. Then again, since everyone just hitches a ride with the nearest Coyote instead of actually applying for a visa at the consulate, maybe they're still there.

Anyway, every few months we get a novel from the election board, 2/3 of which is in languages other than English; also, why is it necessary that I vote on every little thing Sacramento wants to do? Isn't that why we elect legislators?

Back to the topic at hand: If an American was moving to Germany, I'd bet they'd be expected to be able to pass some kind of German test before being granted resident status.

       
<< prev 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.
Anonymous
Register

Forgot Password?

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30