The Next President of the United States: II

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The Straw Poll Results of the just completed Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%

Gov. Scott Walker: 20.5%

Sen. Ted Cruz: 16.6%

Gov. Chris Christie: 5.3%

Gov. Rick Perry: 5.0%

Gov. Jeb Bush: 4.9%

Sen. Rand Paul: 4.1%
Sen. Marco Rubio: 4.1%
Gov. Bobby Jindal: 4.1%

Carly Fiorina: 2.7%
Gov. Mike Huckabee: 2.7%
Sen. Rick Santorum: 1.9%
Donald Trump: 1.2%
Mark Everson: 0.8%
Sen. Lindsey Graham: 0.5%
Gov. John Kasich: 0.2%
Gov. Jim Gilmore: 0.0%

Let’s hope these sentiments don’t continue for another year and a half…or get used to saying “President Clinton” again. (Even though I do like Scott Walker’s showing).

Mufasa

[/quote]

Ben Carson is perhaps one of two or three candidates that Hillary might actually beat. I get Carson he’s a very smart guy who is trying to actually tell the black population the truth about what the democrats have been doing to them for the past 50 years and I admire that. But, black America is not going to buy it. They will turn out in large numbers for whomever the democratic party puts forward regardless of Carsons race.

Fortunately, polls this early mean absolutely nothing.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Pony:

A couple of things.

I think that I read somewhere that within the year, there was a push in Utah to get Huntsman to run again (I can’t remember if it was for President or for Governor again. I think he won for Governor every time he ran); and he turned it down flatly.

I think he is one of the smart ones who doesn’t want to put up with this crap.

When he did run for President, there were a few of us on this Forum who felt that he was the best candidate at the time (even though he ultimately didn’t make it far).

Mufasa
[/quote]

He should change his registration to democrat (that fits his views far better than republican) and challenge Hillary Clinton in the primaries…he’d probably beat her.
[/quote]

That’s total Bullshit, and you know it, Zeb.

This guy ran the most Conservative State in the Union…and won more than once. While I’m no expert on Utah politics; my understanding is that a DEMOCRAT can barely be elected the PTA President there (if at all).

Mufasa
[/quote]

Hey buddy I know you are not a conservative and that’s okay. But, I really want you to know the difference between a real republican and what John Huntsman is. The only reason he didn’t run as a democrat in Utah is because he would never get elected in such a blue state. So, he continues to disguise himself as a democrat in republican clothing. Here you go read about Obama’s choice for Ambassador to China.

“Huntsman lands a job in a liberal think tank”

Krauthammer: ‘Huntsman is a liberalâ??s idea of what a Republican ought to be’

Krauthammer: ‘Huntsman is a liberal’s idea of what a Republican ought to be’ | The Daily Caller

“John Huntsman: Liberal media’s’ pet candidate”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-turn/2011/02/john_huntsman_liberal_medias_p.html

Even his incredibly good looking daughter wants to be a democrat:

“Abby Huntsman teases party switch”

“Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) left his post as President Obamaâ??s ambassador to China last month in order to pursue a potential bid for the presidency. During his ambassadorship, Huntsman penned multiple letters to Obama in which he praised the presidentâ??s â??remarkableâ?? leadership”

Cough…spit up a little…Obama’s “remarkable leadership”? WHAT?

“REPORT: Jon Huntsmanâ??s Secret Life As A Progressive”

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/19/167282/huntsman-progressive-past/

More really good reading on LIBERAL John Huntsman:

"Argued stimulus package was too small: When the economic stimulus bill passed, Huntsman criticized fellow GOP governors who refused to take stimulus money for engaging in â??gratuitous political griping.â?? Later in 2009, he added: â??I guess in hindsight, we can all say that there were some fundamental flaws with it. It probably wasnâ??t large enoughâ?? â?? an argument advanced by, among others, liberal economist Paul Krugman.

Supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants: Huntsman supported comprehensive immigration reforms during his time as governor, including a path-to-citizenship program for undocumented immigrants who came to America for work-related purposes and a plan for young immigrants that sounds eerily similar to the DREAM Act: â??A lot of these kids were either born here or certainly were not in a position in their earlier lives to have any influence over the outcome of their journey,â?? he said. â??They were brought here. Does that mean we disregard them and we kind of cancel them out from achieving the American dream?â??

Supported cap-and-trade: Huntsman supported a cap-and-trade policy to limit the countryâ??s carbon emissions. He signed Utah onto the Western Climate Initiative that would lead to a cap-and-trade system, and during the 2008 gubernatorial debate, said, â??Until we put a value on carbon, weâ??re never going to be able to get serious about dealing with climate change.â?? He also touted the University of Utahâ??s status as a leading center of innovation on carbon capture programs and advocated moving toward a â??greener economy.â?? He recently reiterated his belief in climate change, saying, â??All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring. If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer weâ??d listen to them."

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/19/167282/huntsman-progressive-past/[/quote]

Apologies, meant to call Utah a red state.


Right…

So the 2-time Governor of Utah is a Liberal? (Amazing…just maybe not “flaming”, I guess?)

This is all going to be a slow and painful process to see the Clinton’s end up back in the Whitehouse…and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

Mufasa

And Zeb…it’s true that Polls this far our have little meaning.

However; at the very least those numbers at the SRLC give us some idea of the mindset of “true” Conservatives in 2015.

These early polls also have some value in letting the Candidates know where and how they need to hone their message.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Right…

So the 2-time Governor of Utah is a Liberal? (Amazing…just maybe not “flaming”, I guess?)

This is all going to be a slow and painful process to see the Clinton’s end up back in the Whitehouse…and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

Mufasa[/quote]

Hey, I know where you’re coming from. Most non conservatives look at Huntsman as their favorite republican. But the facts are the facts.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

This is all going to be a slow and painful process to see the Clinton’s end up back in the Whitehouse…and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

Mufasa[/quote]

That is always a possibility and I have to admit it would be very entertaining to see Bill Clinton living it up Washington style once again. Not so much fun to pay another democrat tax hike. But, unless something goes terribly wrong Hillary is headed for obscurity after next Novembers election.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And Zeb…it’s true that Polls this far our have little meaning.

However; at the very least those numbers at the SRLC give us some idea of the mindset of “true” Conservatives in 2015.

These early polls also have some value in letting the Candidates know where and how they need to hone their message.

True on both counts.
Mufasa[/quote]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

This is all going to be a slow and painful process to see the Clinton’s end up back in the Whitehouse…and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

Mufasa[/quote]

That is always a possibility and I have to admit it would be very entertaining to see Bill Clinton living it up Washington style once again. Not so much fun to pay another democrat tax hike. But, unless something goes terribly wrong Hillary is headed for obscurity after next Novembers election.
[/quote]

Zeb !!!

\O_O/ !!!

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

This is all going to be a slow and painful process to see the Clinton’s end up back in the Whitehouse…and the GOP will have no one to blame but themselves.

Mufasa[/quote]

That is always a possibility and I have to admit it would be very entertaining to see Bill Clinton living it up Washington style once again. Not so much fun to pay another democrat tax hike. But, unless something goes terribly wrong Hillary is headed for obscurity after next Novembers election.
[/quote]

Yes, because Republicans always cut taxes and Democrats always raise them, regardless of complex and variegated economic factors. Macroeconomics and fiscal policy be damned.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Yes, because Republicans always cut taxes and Democrats always raise them, regardless of complex and variegated economic factors. Macroeconomics and fiscal policy be damned.[/quote]

Well, republicans don’t always cut taxes. But with the exception of George Herbert Walker Bush everyone has since Reagan.

Every democrat has raised taxes from LBJ (1964) to the clueless clown who currently occupies the oval office.

So, overall if you are a hard working individual and want to keep more of your money you’ll vote republican.

Is that too simple for you?

Would you like to try to confuse the issue?

Go ahead let’s see what you got.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Sounds purty darn good:

“I’d like to take huge chunks of the federal government and send it back to the states”

How refreshing to read about someone who actually gets it.

And this guy could win too. He seems to connect really well with the average guy on the street.

And what a change it would be. Out with the far left wing-nut community organizer and in with a Governor who actually has experience balancing budgets and being a chief executive.

ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? How did they do that? Oh his team inflated numbers which once reviewed were proven to be…inaccurate). You may like Walkers anti-government. anti- union, anti-education stance, but American voters probably won’t since nearly 70% of Wisconsin voters are unhappy with his education cuts. Walker actually has a 45% approval rate in Wisconsin, he may very well lose his home state in a general elction. You’re better off putting your energy behind Jeb (because he’s electable) or Rubio (for the same reason). Walker, Carson, Cruz, Huckabee, Christie, Jindal, Paul, Perry etc are all basically unelectable, The best news for the GOP is that people may be sick of a Dem in the white house (though not THAT sick), You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. Also the Dems are running out retreads and avowed Socialists so… if the GOP loses this time they will have to change their party name.

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. [/quote]

How about no.

I’m too old and too tired of the bullshit to not vote convictions anymore.

Not only do I think you’re wrong about everyone being unelectable, I think even Cruz could land a top 10 electoral victory with a right campaign. The man is far from stupid, and very quick on his feet. If he got even an ounce of fair coverage from the press, he’d certainly have a chance to win in the general. Same with Paul, Rubio and Walker.

(As for Walker’s record, you need to show where the state was prior to him compared to the rest of the country, because they tried the same shit with Romney. “He had the lowest job growth in MA”. Well, yes he did, but MA was already light years ahead of the rest of the nation in unemployment, therefore yes he had low job growth, seeing as we were pretty damn close to fully employed, that happens. “He cut education”. Yup, and remained one of the best states in the nation in that department afterwards… People have pulled the same bullshit spin with Brownback…)

But yes. I’m done “running someone to win”. The next time I vote for “an electable republican” rather than my conviction, be it a republican, libertarian, green or democrat, will be the day I stop voting.

There will be no more blood on my hands.

The Straw Poll Results of the just completed Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%

Gov. Scott Walker: 20.5%

I like Walker. (Is that a “Vote Killer” for you, Zeb, since that may make him a “liberal”?)

He needs to start coming out strongly on more issues. This is the only way you can really see how he measures up against other candidates.

Mufasa

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

Dr. Ben Carson: 25.4%

Mufasa

[/quote]

I like him as a speaker. As a Senator, rep or even a Governor? Sure. As a POTUS? Not a shot in hell. His stance on the 2nd (no I don’t buy his “clarifications”) and his foot in his mouth statements of “being gay is a choice” rule him out for me.

I don’t want the CIC anti-gun or speaking about gay people at all really, because NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT SHOULD FUCKING CARE WHAT CONCENTING ADULTS DO WITH THEIR SEX LIFE!!!ONE!!!ELEEVEN!!!

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
You may want to run somebody that can win, rather than someone you love. [/quote]

How about no.

I’m too old and too tired of the bullshit to not vote convictions anymore.

Not only do I think you’re wrong about everyone being unelectable, I think even Cruz could land a top 10 electoral victory with a right campaign. The man is far from stupid, and very quick on his feet. If he got even an ounce of fair coverage from the press, he’d certainly have a chance to win in the general. Same with Paul, Rubio and Walker.

(As for Walker’s record, you need to show where the state was prior to him compared to the rest of the country, because they tried the same shit with Romney. “He had the lowest job growth in MA”. Well, yes he did, but MA was already light years ahead of the rest of the nation in unemployment, therefore yes he had low job growth, seeing as we were pretty damn close to fully employed, that happens. “He cut education”. Yup, and remained one of the best states in the nation in that department afterwards… People have pulled the same bullshit spin with Brownback…)

But yes. I’m done “running someone to win”. The next time I vote for “an electable republican” rather than my conviction, be it a republican, libertarian, green or democrat, will be the day I stop voting.

There will be no more blood on my hands. [/quote]

Beans,

Just a tad melodramatic I think. So you are saying if one of your preferred candidates doesn’t make the cut you would rather sit out the election and let everyone else decide your future? If I disagree with 75% of candidate A and 100% of candidate B and my favorite (candidate C) is out of the race doesn’t it make sense to pick A? I understand having convictions, but what about making the best possible choice?

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
So you are saying if one of your preferred candidates doesn’t make the cut you would rather sit out the election and let everyone else decide your future? [/quote]

So voting is now the be all and end all to deciding your future? Who’s being melodramatic now?

And yes, I have zero problem blanking the POTUS portion of the ballot. I live in MA, and they would vote blue is Satan was on the ticket. Fuck, the only state in the Union to be blue during the largest electoral victory in the history of the United States POTUS? Yup, the once proud land that now houses the nations pussys.

If that satisfies you, go for it. I won’t be joining you any longer.

[quote] I understand having convictions, but what about making the best possible choice?
[/quote]

I am making the best possible choice. I’d rather lose, and lose hard with a candidate that I can actually stomach to support than hold my nose and have the blood of this disaster on my hands.

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’ve a sincere question: other than voting against the GOP nominee for whatever reasons related to antipathy to Republicans in general why will the Hillary voter cast his/her ballot for her?

What is it about her specifically that makes her admirable enough to receive votes? Is it just her celebrity status? Her years in the limelight?

What has she done?[/quote]

Is there a Republican running that has greater experience or knowledge in the foreign policy realm?[/quote]

Answering a question with a question is one thing. Answering one with an irrelevant one is another.
[/quote]

Four years as Secretary of State is nothing to scoff at. Her foreign policy experience is extensive and blows the other candidates out of the water.[/quote]
I’m going to have to use a sick day today unfortunately. Got bad migraine headaches this morning. Can I be marked as sick?

The ability to hold a position does not constitute as experience. Her accomplishments are:

  1. Her gender (supposed)
  2. Her husband [/quote]

Four years as the second highest ranking American diplomat, second only to the Diplomat in Chief. She traveled more than any Secretary of State to date, visiting an average of 28 states per year during her tenure. Nearly 1,000,000 miles. But she doesn’t have any foreign policy experience, especially vis-a-vis the rest of the contenders in 2016?[/quote]

Really? The fact that she has TRAVELED makes her successful? So is she a Statesman? No. Can she manage the department? No. See Kissinger and Baker about how they can influence foreign policy. Don’t give he that “she serves at the behest of the president” crap.

She has been an abysmal failure. But hell, she has got a lot of stamps on her passport!
[/quote]

Bismark didn’t say HRC was successful. He said she has experience. And extensive experience at that, and was implementing someone else’s strategy in FP. Those are all very true. She DOES blow all the other candidates experience out of the water. You’re sticking your head in the sand because you despise her. For that matter, I do too–but I’m going to recognize the time she spent doing the job she was assigned.

Bismark didn’t say her experience was a net positive for the administration, nor did he say she was successful. He said that HRC has far more experience than any other candidate in FP…and that is undeniably true.[/quote]

Thank you for conveying what I failed to do. You are among the most impartial posters on this forum.
[/quote]

Thank you very kindly sir! Well I wouldn’t say that I am myself, but I do try quite hard. I take it as a point of pride to be able to look at facts as objectively as possible because I’m a scientist and that’s what we are supposed to do. I maintain strong biases like everyone else, but being aware of them is something that I work very hard to do: in science it’s the only way to move forward, as uncomfortable as it usually is (or damaging to ones ego :slight_smile: ). I don’t think the presence or absence of facts should be conflated with interpretation of those facts–they’re very different things.

[quote]PonyWhisperer wrote:
ZEB,

Scott Walker? He’s doing a bang up job in Wisconsin, falling to 38th in job creation (dropped 7 spots in 3 months? [/quote]

Well usually, unless explosive emerging markets are present, the “job creation” statistic is inversely proportional to the unemployment rate. Walker was elected in 2010 and 2014: Unemployment has fallen or stayed even in every single month of his two terms except one 1 point rise in March of 2012. Considering the surrounding months were all at 7.1, I view that as a blip of statistical noise rather than a rise. Employment (as opposed to those dropping out of the workforce and hence not employed but also not counted in “unemployment”) has risen almost every single month since 2010.

Current unemployment rate is 4.6. That is below the current national average for the year to date of ~ 5.6% by a significant amount.