JREF Presidential Nominees 2012

[h.g.Whiz]

I don't think GOP should get to choose presidential candidates anymore. I was wondering who would be president if JREF replaced the GOP.

Who would you nominate ?

[Roadtoad]

Critical Thanking. First of all, I've met the man. He's actually honest with people, without being insulting, condescending, or rude. A huge plus in my book.

Second, he's actually got solid understanding of the issues that this country faces. He'd probably have a better idea how to fix them than most folks, and he'd damn sure have a better idea than Fred Thompson.

Third, he'd be more likely to reinvest in science and technology, and avoid a lot of the crap such as "Sniffex."

I'd go on, but I think you get the idea.

[GStan]

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

I don't think GOP should get to choose presidential candidates anymore. I was wondering who would be president if JREF replaced the GOP.

Who would you nominate ?

I'll take RandFan for President and BPSCG as Veep in 2012.



Change you can believe in.

[jj]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

Critical Thanking. First of all, I've met the man. He's actually honest with people, without being insulting, condescending, or rude. A huge plus in my book.

Second, he's actually got solid understanding of the issues that this country faces. He'd probably have a better idea how to fix them than most folks, and he'd damn sure have a better idea than Fred Thompson.

Third, he'd be more likely to reinvest in science and technology, and avoid a lot of the crap such as "Sniffex."

I'd go on, but I think you get the idea.

I'll bet, then, he's also too smart to be willing to take the job.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by jj

I'll bet, then, he's also too smart to be willing to take the job.

Yeah, well, there's always a fly in the ointment...

[maxpower1227]

Palin/jindal '12 woooooooooo

[Thunder]

Palin for President....Jindal for Vice-President.

=)

[h.g.Whiz]

Originally Posted by jj

I'll bet, then, he's also too smart to be willing to take the job.

Is that the problem with our executive branch, the qualified ones won't step up. I've had coworkers who thought they were being smart by playing dumb which left me stuck on the brick saw for years because I needed a replacement before I could start learning to lay brick. Other workers knew that if they showed any skills on the saw that they would be stuck eating dust all day , I couldn't seem to convince them that the saw was a promotion not a punishment.

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

I don't think GOP should get to choose presidential candidates anymore.

Forget it. Their fat, deaf, pill-popping eunuch -in-chief has already selected Piyush.

I will so enjoy seeing Louisianna turn blue on election night.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Forget it. Their fat, deaf, pill-popping eunuch -in-chief has already selected Piyush.

Is there something wrong with being deaf?

[leftysergeant]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Is there something wrong with being deaf?

Only when it is self-inflicted, as is the case with the eunuch in Florida.

[Whiplash]

More amazing tolerance.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Only when it is self-inflicted, as is the case with the eunuch in Florida.

Enough.

I, too, am sick of Rush Limbaugh. I, too, followed the court case regarding his drug use and doctor shopping, and hoped that for once in his life, he'd accept some responsibility for who he is, and for what he does. He did not. So, from 9 to 12, Monday through Friday, the radio stays off. I turn it on at the top and bottom of the hour to get the traffic, but that's it, and that's only if I need to know what's ahead, and the CB ain't working.

I am sick of listening to someone who takes pleasure in the pain of others, whether that pain was in the past, or if it's in the present. It's the kind of sociopathic behavior I've seen in my own family, and I resent it. It's something I fight within myself, simply because it is wrong, and I don't want to take pleasure in someone else's misery. It is a very ugly form of cruelty, and in the end, I find it's really not that pleasurable.

I recall well when Rush started with his crap about Rio Linda, and knew then that he was a rather nasty piece of work. I'm sure he's taken great pleasure in the pain of others as they've lost their homes, wrapping himself securely in the knowledge that his home is paid for, and he didn't find himself in the financial traps that a lot of us have. He gets paid quite well for what he does. Most of us don't. His claims that he hasn't forgotten what it's like to be at the bottom end of the pay scale cuts no ice with us in this part of America, as we're watching our income shrink in relation to the cost of living. So he remembers what it's like, huh? Maybe he could remind his buddy, Chainsaw Al Dunlap, what it's like to have to struggle to make a five dollar bill go where you need a fifty.

I'm well aware of Rush Limbaugh's attitude towards people of color, towards lower income folks, and towards truckers in particular. (Frankly, if Limbaugh were to show up in Sacramento again, I'd plant a winch bar in his head. I think that's much funnier than his constant bleat about "Trucker's Bombs.") I'm sick of his diatribes, I'm sick of hearing from my idiot BiL about The Round Mound of Sound's latest bon mots, and I think I have better ways to spend my time than listening to a bigoted, homophobic, vicious, nasty, and willfully ignorant slab of overcooked meat with nothing better to do than sling sh** at anyone who disagrees with him. (And if you don't think that's what he does, you haven't been paying attention.)

I have far more reason to despise what Rush Limbaugh is, and what he represents.

Having said that, I resent your depiction of the man. He is no victim of circumstance, nor is he a "eunuch." He's a draft dodger, who skipped out on Vietnam because of a pilonoidal cyst on his butt, while men like my Dad were putting their lives on the line so he could take pot shots at those who pointed out he was wrong. He didn't even register to vote until he moved to Sacramento, and even then, it was maybe one or two elections before he moved off to New York. He tries to veil his racism by having Dr. Walter E. Williams fill in for him once in a while, but even then, it still shows through. (I'll listen to Williams; he's at least knowledgeable about his subject matter, and he's a genuine conservative, while Limbaugh merely plays one on TV, or Radio, as the case may be.) He is what he is because that's what he's made himself.

Rush Limbaugh is to true conservatives what Benny Hinn is to genuine Christians: an embarrassing leech who supports himself by attaching himself to the gullible and febrile minded of those who identify themselves as conservative. He's a moral and intellectual coward who can't bring himself to admit that he might be mistaken, that he might not have all the facts, or the ability to interpret them. He might have been a friend to William F. Buckley, but I'll be damned if I can see where Buckley -- who was not merely a conservative, but a genuine intellectual, as well -- managed to direct, alter, or even improve Limbaugh's thinking.

I consider myself conservative, (note the lack of capitalization), but only when it makes sense. And when I'm wrong, I'm willing to admit it. If you have better information, I want to hear what you have. This attempt to smear anyone who claims a conservative viewpoint by linking them with Limbaugh is insulting. Do me a favor and leave him out of any conversations around here, please.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Whiplash

More amazing tolerance.

You would prefer lefty attack him based on his heritage?

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

You would prefer lefty attack him based on his heritage?

I would rather Lefty illustrate the facts. Far more devastating.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I would rather Lefty illustrate the facts. Far more devastating.

Aw, that'd be great. I was just pointing out that Whiplash's astonishment and outrage is rather one-sided.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Aw, that'd be great. I was just pointing out that Whiplash's astonishment and outrage is rather one-sided.

I would agree. But so is Lefty's, at times.

I can't stand Limbaugh. Nor can I tolerate Al Franken. (Reading his books is a painful duty, not a pleasure.) And for the same reason.

There are better ways to make a point. And, as I said, I'll admit to being wrong.

[h.g.Whiz]

[Roadtoad]

You're saddened for what reason?

[BenBurch]

I agree there is no reason whatsoever to make Rush Limbaugh worse than he actually is.

Because he is;

Feckless, Hypocritical, Cowardly, Cynical, and worst of all, WRONG.

And he has milked hate for millions.

[leftysergeant]

What's wrong with the implications that he is sexually dysfunctional? He's a drug abuser, can't stay married to a woman with the IQ of a dust mop, and was caught coming back from a country known for its underage brothels with a bottle of puffy pills. How many dots need we connect?

That his followers are willing to put up with him any longer shows that they are in moral decline and fit to disappear into the tar pits along with Palin and Jindal.

And good riddance to them. They are no longer even good for comic relief.

[BenBurch]

Well, I guess one's sexual dysfunction is no business of mine, really. Many people have that problem for many reasons, age being the chief of those.

Yes, Dominica is known for sex tourism, but we don't have any evidence at all that is why he was there. You can also pick up adults at the tourist hangouts and have a fling you know, and no reason he shouldn't have.

You can SPECULATE, but isn't that what he does?

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

What's wrong with the implications that he is sexually dysfunctional? He's a drug abuser, can't stay married to a woman with the IQ of a dust mop, and was caught coming back from a country known for its underage brothels with a bottle of puffy pills. How many dots need we connect?

How about the one that implicates him as having gone to an underage brothel. (Bet the radical right would LOVE that one!)

No, he can't stay married. He's been married four times. Even as he wails about the lack of family values in this country, he contributes to their decline as defined by the likes of James Dobson and his ilk. Seems to me Bruce Hershenson was busted going into a strip club, which was a huge turn-off to the religious right. That helped Barbara Boxer when she ran for re-election to the Senate.

He can't get it up. Wow. Who the hell cares? I don't, until there's evidence that he's boffing a 12 year old. That's a felony in this country, and if you're a US Citizen, you're subject to arrest and prosecution if you're caught doing it overseas. If you have the evidence, post it. Maybe we can finally be done with this aural sludge.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

That his followers are willing to put up with him any longer shows that they are in moral decline and fit to disappear into the tar pits along with Palin and Jindal.

I don't hold Palin's daughter against her. I hold her misuse of her office against her. And Jindal has pretty well established himself as a political joke. I'd like it better if it were actually funny, but, hey, I don't write for Leno.

I'd like to think Conservatives, the real deal, would finally get fed up with people like this. It's a little tough to see that happening when you have verbal brutes like Limbaugh shouting them down when they dare to question the great "Maharushi." I could wish that Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams would have radio programs of their own. That they don't suggests to me some serious racism on the Right.

Having said that, I can point to this and show evidence. I would like to see yours. As someone of a conservative bent, I need solid evidence to counter the erosion of common sense I'm seeing.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

And good riddance to them. They are no longer even good for comic relief.

I'm not laughing, either. I'm embarrassed by them. It's sickening that decent people are being railroaded out because they don't walk in lockstep with Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, and others. Dammit, if you are obligated to be in total agreement with their ilk, do you really have any intellectual liberty -- and with it, any intellectual responsibility -- to yourself or anyone else?

I disagree with many people on the left. But I do not hate them, and am grateful for them when they are right. I would rather be correct, and do what is right, than do what is accepted, and wind up doing what's wrong. It's called being responsible, and being a citizen. I don't see that from you, but if I'm wrong, I'll admit it here. I already have to Ben and others.

I want Palin to leave public life. I want her to take time to examine what it is she's doing in office, what she's done in the past, and try and figure out what it was she's done wrong. I want her to try to get things straightened out, to learn from her mistakes. I doubt Jindal ever will; after reading much of his speech, I think he's a lost cause, swept up in the world of Woo. We don't need people excluded from public life, but those who choose to participate ought to at least do so honestly, and should do so wisely. At this stage of the game, we can't afford to be cutting people out; we need greater participation.

It's too bad that Palin and her ilk seem to think that merely means showing up on Election Day, because I was taught that it meant trying to inform yourself before you went into the voting booth.

[kallsop]

I don't know about 2012. With hindsight, Mitt Romney was the best guy to manage the economy and steer us away from the divisive war on wealth we have now. Maybe he'll be back in 2012, but he'll be 4 years too late. It's going to be hard for him to stay relevant for the next 4 years. Jindal is a pro creationism kook and needs to be kept well away from national GOP office and sharp objects. Palin will still be a good VP pick in 2012. The hatred from the left is all you need to know, she is a danger to their agenda because she is electable. Other than that, there are no front runners now and it's really wide open for 2012. Maybe the republicans will wise up and change their primary procedures so the candidate is not chosen by democrats, maybe not.

[BenBurch]

Mitt Romney?

Oh, I would love to have him running against Obama in 2012!

Because it is absolutely the case that his religion will work against him in a serious way! IMO it makes him unelectable for a National office.

Mind you, the only candidate that would make me happy on that score would be an atheist, but you have to understand that to a great number of Americans, Mormonism is pretty damned unacceptable. Even more-so than Catholicism.

[Brainster]

Romney is ineligible per the OP which specifies that the Republicans can't pick anybody. As long as we're doing fantasy, how about Obama versus Clinton--Bill Clinton, that is?

[BenBurch]

OK, then, how about Noam Chomsky vs Obama?

The debates would be actually fascinating to listen to.

[h.g.Whiz]

Do you want hear somethin funny?

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

Do you want hear somethin funny?

Sure.

How's this?

[h.g.Whiz]

I had to figure out what GOP meant before I started this thread.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

I had to figure out what GOP meant before I started this thread.

Not too bad. You already know more than the leadership of the GOP.

[h.g.Whiz]

My youtubeplayer sucks.

[jj]

Originally Posted by kallsop

I don't know about 2012. With hindsight, Mitt Romney was the best guy to manage the economy and steer us away from the divisive war on wealth we have now.

Yep, modern conservative thinking: "Raise taxes" ::= "war on wealth".

And after the last 8 years, a "conservative" talking about "divisive"? Cut me a break.

[Undesired Walrus]

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Because it is absolutely the case that his religion will work against him in a serious way! IMO it makes him unelectable for a National office.

Weren't people saying similar things about Obama?

I've said this a few times, but it is worth repeating: It is a myth Romney's mormonism alienated the Christian Right. He had a solid lock on the evangelist vote until he dropped out of the Republican primary.

[Roadtoad]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Weren't people saying similar things about Obama?

I've said this a few times, but it is worth repeating: It is a myth Romney's mormonism alienated the Christian Right. He had a solid lock on the evangelist vote until he dropped out of the Republican primary.

I didn't support Romney because I didn't trust him. His economics seemed to be based on a shell game, and anytime I start hearing people bleating about "Family Values," I start to cringe, because the values they espouse rarely seem to uphold anything I would want to see in my own family.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Weren't people saying similar things about Obama?

I've said this a few times, but it is worth repeating: It is a myth Romney's mormonism alienated the Christian Right. He had a solid lock on the evangelist vote until he dropped out of the Republican primary.

No. What Romney had was a solid lock on conservatives who are NOT evangelical. Huckabee had the lock on the evangelical vote. It can be hard to tease this out of the polling, but let's look at a couple of states for examples.

In New Hampshire, Romney finished third among "born again" voters, with 27% of the vote (McCain and Huckabee had 28%). He did better among those not born again, with 34%, as did McCain with 38% of those voters. Huckabee's support, on the other hand, dropped off the cliff, with only 6% of non-born again voters supporting him.

A similar pattern emerges in Georgia, where Romney (28%) and McCain (27%) tailed Huckabee (43%) among the born again. Romney (35%) and McCain (40%) did better than Huckabee (19%) among the non-evangelicals, but in a state where the breakdown in the GOP was 62% born again and 38% only born once, it wasn't enough.

Same in Iowa, a crucial state in derailing Romney's chances. Huckabee crushed Romney 46%-19% among evangelicals, but lost badly to him among non-evangelicals 14%-33%.

Now the hard thing is figuring out how evangelicals would vote in a general election, when the choice would be between a Mormon and a Democrat. But this CNN poll (linked at Drudge) showed that at least in January, Romney was the least preferred candidate of anybody:

Quote:

CNN/OPINION RESEARCH CORPORATION POLL
January 9-10
REGISTERED VOTERS
Would Definitely Vote Against That Candidate in November

Romney 62%
Giuliani 55%
Huckabee 52%
Clinton 43%
McCain 43%
Obama 38%

[h.g.Whiz]

I don't trust anybody on GOP list except for maybe Ron Paul. I would rather have a president with absolutely no ties with anyone or group whom might benefit by gaining political power and or would prosper financially if they should get elected. In other words I want a president who owes no favors to anyone so that thay are able to make unbiased decisions. This is why I started this thread because I don't believe that there is a single politician who would be immune to the corruptive influences that sabotages unbiased decision making.

So far I see Randfan, CriticalThanking, and BPSCG.

Keep in mind that I didn't imply that they had to be a Jref member(but thats cool with me). I wanted members to post their ideal candidate preferably someone outside of the politcal spectrum. Furthermore I would appreciate it if you discussed the GOP candidates in the other Hg thread.

[elbe]

Originally Posted by h.g.Whiz

I don't trust anybody on GOP list except for maybe Ron Paul. I would rather have a president with absolutely no ties with anyone or group whom might benefit by gaining political power and or would prosper financially if they should get elected. In other words I want a president who owes no favors to anyone so that thay are able to make unbiased decisions. This is why I started this thread because I don't believe that there is a single politician who would be immune to the corruptive influences that sabotages unbiased decision making.

I fail to see how anyone elected can claim to not be influenced by anyone else. Even if they completely firewall lobbyists, they are still indebted to the constituency that elected them into office - people who will certainly expect some sort of benefit from electing said person.

But then does it matter if they make unbiased decisions? No matter what decisions you make people will be against some of them. If you have a D after your name the republican partisans will hate it, and vice versa. To the extreme partisans even the most unbiased, logical actions can appear to be biased pandering.