The Next President of the United States?

[sexman1stclass]

I'd welcome a 3rd party, and even a 4th, 5th, etc. More options, more choices can be good.

Fair disclosure: I primarily identify with the Democratic party, and I did vote for Obama in 2008, but I consider this a pretty balanced, unbiased thought -- Obama will be reelected in 2012. I think Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination (for VP I'm feeling Tim Pawlenty, but really it could be so many). The election will be close, hard, and rough. If you thought '08 was bad, this will be crazy. Obama's first term has had ups and downs, but when it comes down to it, I do not believe there's enough to cost his reelection.

General election is a year away, so things can still change, but we'll see what happens.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Cain is the best choice out of them so far.

No he's not. You should be embarrassed.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Best candidate is Chris Christie (Irish Italian-American, baby!). He's the best, and screw you if you get on his weight. It is of no consequence (think FDR).

 

[Will E Worm]

I'd welcome a 3rd party, and even a 4th, 5th, etc. More options, more choices can be good.

No he's not. You should be embarrassed.

Bachmann, Romney, Perry... Cain is the best choice out of the group.

 

[Will E Worm]

I'd welcome a 3rd party, and even a 4th, 5th, etc. More options, more choices can be good.

No he's not. You should be embarrassed.

Bachmann, Romney, Perry... Cain is the best choice out of the group.

Best candidate is Chris Christie (Irish Italian-American, baby!). He's the best, and screw you if you get on his weight. It is of no consequence (think FDR).

He's more of a Democrat. That makes him a RINO.

Chris Christie is a RINO. Christie supports illegal aliens, supports Obamacare, supports gun control, While he cut spending: Christie relied on stimulus funding for his state his record on spending is not that stellar.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Gingrich or Romney. You do realize that you will have to support one of those two guys right Will? None of the others have a hope in hell of winning the nomination.

 

[Will E Worm]

Gingrich or Romney. You do realize that you will have to support one of those two guys right Will? None of the others have a hope in hell of winning the nomination.

I will be voting third party in that case. I still don't see those two winning anything.

 

[Sam Fisher]

Gingrich is by far the best candidate.

But remember, come election day... Party Trumps Candidate!

 

[Will E Worm]

Gingrich is by far the best candidate.

But remember, come election day... Party Trumps Candidate!

With all the skeletons in his closet. He just needs to step down.

Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet Link

 

[Rey C.]

Gingrich: an enigma wrapped in a riddle surrounded by mystery. If Gingrich is the best available option, that alone, to me, says how limited the options are. A guy who got run out of the House, because he was so crooked, probably wouldn't be my first choice... if I had wide open choices.

I think there are (there HAS to be) some good, intelligent, (half way) honest, qualified candidates who could run as Republicans for POTUS. How the GOP ended up with this motley crew of crooks, flakes and goofballs, I will never completely understand. Have intelligent, rational people, like Jack Kemp (R.I.P.), just abandoned the GOP and become Independents? I'm thinking that may be the case. :dunno:

 

[Ziggous]

i wouldn't mind having either obama or ron paul as president.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

i wouldn't mind having either obama or ron paul as president.

That's quite the dichotomy there.


Gingrich said tonight that he will put up a wall on the Southern border. Dammit, I'm sold. I will vote for Newt (weirdest name in presidential history maybe) if he gets the GOP nod. :yesyes:

 

[lurkingdirk]

That's quite the dichotomy there.


Gingrich said tonight that he will put up a wall on the Southern border. Dammit, I'm sold. I will vote for Newt (weirdest name in presidential history maybe) if he gets the GOP nod. :yesyes:

Really? A wall to keep out Mexicans is what will get your vote?

That's too bad.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Really? A wall to keep out Mexicans is what will get your vote?

That's too bad.

You are damn fuckin' right. Enough of this nonsense. Our entire culture is being bastardized and our infrastructure is being gutted because of this. Just ran into a fella the other day my dad grew up with and his son was broadsided by an illegal. Now he's got all kinds of medical issues to deal with. The scum that hit him (intoxicated, of course) had already jumped the border a couple times. They will deport him once again and that shit will just continue. Also the neighborhood I grew up in has all kinds of Mexican stores, restaurants, etc. that are pretty clearly not "English." The last decade alone I've seen the entire East Side literally change before my eyes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of that shit. (and no, I didn't make that story up)

 

[lurkingdirk]

You are damn fuckin' right. Enough of this nonsense. Our entire culture is being bastardized and our infrastructure is being gutted because of this. Just ran into a fella the other day my dad grew up with and his son was broadsided by an illegal. Now he's got all kinds of medical issues to deal with. The scum that hit him (intoxicated, of course) had already jumped the border a couple times. They will deport him once again and that shit will just continue. Also the neighborhood I grew up in has all kinds of Mexican stores, restaurants, etc. that are pretty clearly not "English." The last decade alone I've seen the entire East Side literally change before my eyes.

I'm sick and fucking tired of that shit. (and no, I didn't make that story up)

While I understand your frustration, (and really, I do, and I agree with you,) I still feel that's a bad policy on which to cast your vote. If you're going to vote on so narrow a platform, you deserve what you get.
Instead, think about foreign policy. The impact it can have. How it gets blended with domestic policy. A leader thinking like that is a leader that will do good things.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

While I understand your frustration, (and really, I do, and I agree with you,) I still feel that's a bad policy on which to cast your vote. If you're going to vote on so narrow a platform, you deserve what you get.
Instead, think about foreign policy. The impact it can have. How it gets blended with domestic policy. A leader thinking like that is a leader that will do good things.

Yeah, I've made no committment and of course I have to do more homework on ole' Newt, I don't know at all yet. Honestly I'd like America to be "neutral" for once in the world, but the only candidate that will take that policy is Paul. Then of course I understand we have to play a role in the world because of economics and trade and all our allies around the world. Shit is complex no doubt.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Yeah, I've made no committment and of course I have to do more homework on ole' Newt, I don't know at all yet. Honestly I'd like America to be "neutral" for once in the world, but the only candidate that will take that policy is Paul. Then of course I understand we have to play a role in the world because of economics and trade and all our allies around the world. Shit is complex no doubt.

America being neutral for a while would accomplish at least two things: 1. improved international relations (in the long term, after everyone stopped being pissed they weren't more involved); 2. smaller American budget, lower deficit, less deficit spending.

It's really easy to be polarized on an issue like this. Vote party lines, vote immigration, vote abortion, blah blah blah. One issue voting is, in my opinion, irresponsible. These are complex issues, and people should think hard about their vote. Single issue voting isn't thinking hard. :2 cents:

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

America being neutral for a while would accomplish at least two things: 1. improved international relations (in the long term, after everyone stopped being pissed they weren't more involved); 2. smaller American budget, lower deficit, less deficit spending.

It's really easy to be polarized on an issue like this. Vote party lines, vote immigration, vote abortion, blah blah blah. One issue voting is, in my opinion, irresponsible. These are complex issues, and people should think hard about their vote. Single issue voting isn't thinking hard. :2 cents:

You are right about that.

That's one thing I gave Obama credit for - the Libya issue earlier this year. So what if we just put forth logistical support. I thought it was nice for a change we weren't the "leader" in such an affair and finally let the Europeans deal with that whole mess, especially considering some of those nations were colonizers a couple centuries ago and were partly culpable for those countries and where they are. When I heard the neo-cons and the like bitch about that I thought, are you guys out of your skulls??!?!

Like I said, I will look at who is put forth in the end. There are a handful I absolutely would never vote for though.

 

[Jenkum]

You are right about that.

That's one thing I gave Obama credit for - the Libya issue earlier this year. So what if we just put forth logistical support. I thought it was nice for a change we weren't the "leader" in such an affair and finally let the Europeans deal with that whole mess, especially considering some of those nations were colonizers a couple centuries ago and were partly culpable for those countries and where they are. When I heard the neo-cons and the like bitch about that I thought, are you guys out of your skulls??!?!

Like I said, I will look at who is put forth in the end. There are a handful I absolutely would never vote for though.

LOL, the USA was absolutely the leading player in the destruction of Libya and the assassination of Ghaddafi. It was a complete CIA operation. The arming, funding, and leading of the muslim extremist Al Quaida rebels from the eastern tribes. The CIA got the Muslim extremist scum of Libya together and used them to carry out an agenda. NATO is the USA, the USA is NATO

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

LOL, the USA was absolutely the leading player in the destruction of Libya and the assassination of Ghaddafi. It was a complete CIA operation. The arming, funding, and leading of the muslim extremist Al Quaida rebels from the eastern tribes. The CIA got the Muslim extremist scum of Libya together and used them to carry out an agenda. NATO is the USA, the USA is NATO

Don't tell that to the neocons. At the very least Obama took a step back before they just jumped in (like we usually do).