GOP'ish candidates
 

Chichester, I saw your posting in Justice and wasn't sure how it fit in there, but it is a subject on its own that I'm concerned about. It's time to see if a GOP candidate that doesn't in some remote way relate back to Reagan, can win. And if ANY GOP candidate can't win against Obama the GOP really should pack it up and never show their face again, and the curse often attributed to Alexander Tytler has become a reality.

I think many of the current GOP candidates will have the same problem McCain had: Conservative voters were not impressed that McCain was conservative enough, so bizarrely they elected the most far left president the country has ever had.

The obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread will of course be obvious, but to the few conservatives out there, what do you think of this round of GOP candidates?

I like Hunter as he seems to be some what in the middle but sadly i dout he'll make it past the first few primaries as he is not far enough on the right for most GOP primary voters
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

I've been reading articles about how the GOP is engaged in a Civil War. Romney and Gingrich both don't seem to have a problem with insurance mandates...So long as it's not passed by Democrats. This has alienated conservative TeaTards...These same extremists are pulling the party in a direction which is almost guaranteed to alienate moderate and independent voters.

The only reason I would vote in the Republican primary would be to elect the candidate Obama would stand the greatest chance of beating. Generally speaking, Republican policies make me vomit inside my mouth. But if I had to vote for one Republican, it'd probably be Ron Paul...And that vote would have little to do with Paul's chances of beating Obama.

Ron Paul is definitely an extremist wacko on some points...But I REALLY dig his ultra-libertarian view as it applies to civil liberties. The government has no business regulating abortion, gun rights, or what chemicals or drugs you put in your body. The fact that Paul wants to legalize all drugs is reason enough that I'd vote for him...And I don't even do drugs anymore...I just feel that strongly about how un-Constitutional the "War on Drugs" is. I also like his views on abolishing the Fed.

That said, Paul stands virtually no chance of being a contender. I doubt he'll pick up any states, but if this primary gives him a platform to share his views...That's good enough I suppose. Hopefully some of his libertarian views will help shape the GOP narrative.

The republicans are engaged in a civil war. And the reason is that they have become less and less conservative, hence the name of this thread. The big driver for the republican resurgence in the 2010 election was because of what you call "extremist TeaTards". They may be extreme to progressives, and to the current politicians calling themselves republicans, but I'm not sure what is so extreme about the Tea Party. They want to balance the budget? Shocking. What do you think is extreme about them?

Perhaps your perception of the Tea Party movement is tainted by CNN?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xWGvdRQ9Q

I am sure I would be characterized by Tracy Coxx as one of "the obligatory GOP haters who respond to this thread," but in fact I despise the Democrats and the Republicans, or -- as I like to call them -- the Republocrats. Nevertheless, anyone who thinks the Tea Party is a) a grassroots movement and b) that it's primary objective is to balance the budget is, quite frankly, a wishful-thinking simpleton (at best).

Tracy Coxx, I do give you credit for making the effort, in your first post, to forestall any critical discourse by those who don't agree with you. Unfortunately, there are no private threads on this site, so the "obligatory GOP haters" will be free to post in this one. And, yes, I know that's not exactly what you wrote -- and by admitting that, I hope you will feel that you don't need to make your obligatory post that seeks to deflect attention away from substance by claiming I put words in your mouth.

I haven't heard much about him, but what little I read seems to indicate he's far enough right for me. What do you know about him that most GOP primary voters wouldn't like?

I believe you mean Huntsman.

He'll probably not say batshit crap like Michelle Bachman.

Is it a good enough post if I just say this made me laugh?

You maybe right, i never said i'd vote for him but the interview on CNN i saw on him he strikes me as a middle ground guy which perks my intrest

Now Tracy asked why i don't think primary voters will vote for him and the answer is he's a middle guy and would likely make deals of give and take which hard core GOP voters can't stand they have the tude of our way or the highway
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Jon Huntsman -- former governor of Utah and Obama's former ambassador to China.

Oh shit China? Well there you go smc. Obama's giving the country away to China and Huntsman helped him--yup only reason to have an ambassador. Good riddance to them both.

One thing you can count on is when all is said and done the GOP voters will always pick the worst canadate aviable so in 12 don't be surpised to see Palin/Bachman ticket :eek:
:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

OMG! He may be the actual "Manchurian candidate"!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_851926.html

And the skies did part whence a dragon emerged from the turmoil. Two heads had she and they called themselves Palin/Bachmann and they sung the horn of the end of the world.

Say all you want about Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, Enoch Root, but the question on everybody's mind is this: If they had cocks and waved them around in your face seductively, would you suck?

Yes but let's put it this way: I would fuck them but I wouldn't let them fuck me.

No wait let me correct this: what I would actually like to do is fuck Tina Fey imitating Palin--with a cock. I have a weakness for funny women.

You're going to see several smart Republicans pass on this election and wait for 2016. Obama's going to raise taxes and piss off everyone in his second term because that's best for America. But this is clearly Obama's time right now.

Not so sure about Obama raising taxes. And even if he does raising it to Clinton era levels is not good enough.

Anyone who thinks we can cut our way out of our deficit without raising taxes clearly doesn't have their head screwed on right. I mean, yes, theoretically we could eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense and not have a debt problem. But I think the middle class would rather pay higher taxes than see that happen. I make $8.50/hr (so I'm not even middle class based on my income), but I'd gladly pay a few percent more of my income if it would guarantee that Social Security and Medicare would be there for me and future generations in retirement. That said, the middle class will NOT stand to have their taxes raised when corporations like General Electric make $5.1 billion in US profits and pay an effective tax rate of 0% in 2010. For the middle class to swallow higher taxes, we're going to have to see the wealthy and the recipients of corporate welfare step up to the bat and pay higher taxes as well.

This is very noble of you but as you are already aware it is not you or me or any other middle to low class families that should bear the tax burden. It is the rich who must do so. They already take all that wealth from the working people. The least that could be done is tax them significantly higher and invest that money in the people. That, however, is the clumsy solution but it will have to do for now.

This is what the GOP stand for When Reagan and the first Bush were running the country in to the red with there trickle down no Rep said diddly until Clinton was in the whitehouse then it was there top harp and concern and when W almost bankrupted us these same GOP said nothing until Obama took the whitehouse and sure enought they started harping about the sea of red ink created by the GOP lead house and sen and W

And now they claim more tax cuts are needed for the top brackets and all evil entitlements most be cut and done away with so the rich never have to suffer or pay off the red ink created by the GOP
I expect there next trick will be to cry we have to do away with all corp taxes in order to make jobs and the workers be extra taxed to pay the corp taxes a plivage of working tax and then to make tax cuts for the rich they'll have a not rich tax peantly all this will be from the Palin/Bachman ticket
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Didn't Obama already have his Jimmy Carter moment? Maybe he did, but there's no "Reagan" in the GOP lineup.

You should pay a few percent more... into your 401k.

Jimmy was a lot better then W

:yes: Jerseygirl Jen

LOL at what?

Jimmy inherited a stagent econmy high unemployment from Ford and Nixon
and he won the election in 76
While W inherited a balance budget a strong economy and he stole the election in 00
Jimmy inherited a mess almost as bad as the mess Bo inherited

And W inherited Al Qaeda from Clinton who did nothing to confront them. What's your point? You're talking about what Carter & W inherited. You still haven't said what Carter is better at than W.

No 401(k) to pay into. No pension either. And the employer doesn't pay one red cent towards our health plans. One of the quality service jobs that our economy was left with after we outsourced all our production capacity overseas.

No pension? Was it taken away from you by your employer?

great cartoon there. The depiction of the left winger using a particularly vile anti-semitic Jewish stereotype demonstates quite well exactly what sort of people are behind the tea party movement and the right in general.

Vile anti-Semitic stereotype? What be this stereotype? I can't see what you're seeing since I know next to nothing about Jewish stereotypes.

Check it Anna. I found these two other gems in the same cartoonists site. Don't you just love the utter disconnect from reality?

I thought all those things were already "killed" before Obama came in. The border one is particularly precious since anti-immigration folks are rather clueless about the status of the US as a settler colony.

And isn't Common one of the chillest rappers out there? I've never listened to his music.

Palin is "toying" with fame again as she hops on the bus to ruin the biker's weekend in DC. What a whore. I like Bachman better, but how would you have liked having Trump's trophy wife as First Lady??!! WOOO!!!!
Obama should run Hillary as vice pesident this time, so she can be on deck for 2016.

Palin and Bachman make me ashamed to be of the same gender
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Date me and find out what shame really is!

Palin's eyes really scare me. Psycho. Bachman adopted tons of kids at least, I think Romney will get the nomination???....Too early to tell for sure. It doesn't really matter who the Republicans nominate, they run everything by committee anyway, but killing Medicare as their platform? Hello? Anybody home?
Maybe this country really is about to crash and all the Powerbrokers have gone to Europe. Or Wall St. Or they're hiding til Obama is gone.

After watching the GOP debate i would say all seven of em are true GOP candidates
All seven of em believe in trickle down economics and all we need to do to put America back to work is cut taxes and deregalate
So they all want to go back to the failed W policies
So if one of those seven morrons win in 12 it'll be like having W back in power
If they win get ready for the great depression to return if you think things are bad now wait till one of these bozos take over and pick up where W left off
We'll be a thrid world country for sure
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

Yes there is, Chris Christie but he's not running.:confused:

So far the "Hopey, changey" thing is working out better than the failed supply side economic policies of Republicans.

To illustrate just how fiscally bankrupt some of the candidates are, Tim Pawlenty calls for a tax plan that would give an average tax break of $1.4 million to the top 0.1% of the populace. (That's an additional $1.4 million tax break in addition to what they currently receive.) In an economy where "cutting the debt and reducing spending" is so vogue, the cost for Pawlenty's tax plan rings in at a cool $11.6 trillion in lost revenue.

Republican economics? Drastically reduce taxes while expecting the budget to balance itself? I've never heard that one explained. If one thing supply side economics have taught us its that cutting taxes does not increase government revenues. Or are you one of those who thinks that we can just cut our way out of $14 trillion in debt?

And $1.4 million does not equal $11.6 trillion. But when you multiply that tax cut by all the various millionaires and billionaires over several years...It begins to add up. And don't forget Pawlenty's call to eliminate capital gains, estate taxes, etc.

Lest we forget...The top 10% of the population owns 80% of the US stock market. So while the rich like to complain about top marginal income tax rates, they in fact have most of their wealth sitting in securities that are taxed at discounted rates (15% on capital gains and dividends). This is how the rich end up paying lower effective tax rates than working stiffs.

And before you get all "but we can't hurt the job creators" on me...Tell me one thing...What economic benefit (other than liquidity) does the secondary buying and selling of securities do for the economy? And why should the gains on such sales be tax-advantaged?

I favor tax-advantaged treatment for investment capital that is actually put to work as venture capital for starting up/expanding firms. Someone that buys shares in an IPO is actually providing investment capital to a corporation-- they are investing in the economy. And perhaps gains on this sort of capital deployment should be tax advantaged.

But let's take an established corporation that is not selling shares on the market...In other words, you are the secondary purchaser of those company shares. Someone long before you bought the IPO shares and actually provided investment capital to the corporation. But once the original buyer sells those shares...That is where the tax-advantaged treatment should end. Because the next person in line may buy the shares at a higher price than the original owner...But he is merely providing capital to the seller of the securities...His capital is not being deployed by the corporation that initially sold shares. Secondary stock sales have no net economic benefit to the issuing companies. Arguably, the only benefit that secondary sales provide is to create liquidity in the market...But this benefit should not receive favorable tax treatment.

Now I got off track...But the idea that we can cut our way out of the debt without raising taxes is absurd. I believe we will ALL have to pay higher taxes if we want to keep the social programs that our society has grown to love...And yes, that means the middle class will have to pay higher taxes alongside the wealthy.

one simple question
 

How many jobs were created by extending the Bush tax cuts?
:eek: Jerseygirl Jen

touche~
 

I'm sure there may be...But the majority of Americans don't want major structural changes to Social Security or Medicare. Too many Americans want their cake and to eat it too.

875 days after Bush and still rockin with the W gripes. :lol: Whose policies would you like to see come back? Spending ourselves into oblivion didn't work. Even Obama admits that, as he recently smiled and said: "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected" as those around him laughed. (You can get away with laughing at the dismal state of your economy when the media is working for you btw).

Except W comes off looking like a secular science wiz next to most of those guys (gals).

How many more jobs would have been lost if BO ended the Bush tax cuts?

Clinton? I'm all for a budget surplus.

Yeah, yeah, I know: this isn't the .com bubble. Still, I couldn't resist. :p

It's fabulous that the Republican field is so pathetic, because Obama is going to trip lots of alarms and warning lights before his eight year mission is over. If you Republicans are so right why can't you come up with a candidate that's not a joke?
Because Chris Christie and Jeb Bush are too smart to run.

Yeah, those were good times. Although he did have a pretty tough time taxing and spending with the republican controlled House & Senate.

Because they've been hijacked by the religious right.

I'm wondering why Christie is so popular? What does he have that other GOPish candidates don't? And I think the country is done with the Bushes.