Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

SweetCheri -> Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/3/2011 11:07:22 PM)

Well coming here has been a real eye-opening learning experience with regards to American politics. I had no idea!

Anyway, I have developed a cursory interest and have sort of tried to follow things both here and elsewhere. One of the things I'm struck by from watching each one rise to the top of the pack only to self-destruct, is the really low quality of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination. My questions for the Republicans and other right-leaning posters on here are:

1) Are any of these candidates really who you would want running your country?

2) Would any of them be your first choice regardless of who else was running?

3) Who would you have preferred to see run?




TheHeretic -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 12:04:58 AM)

We go through this all the time, Cheri. Last run with the Dems, we had a former First Lady, a personal injury lawyer, and a novelty candidate who had never run anything in his life, in an election cycle where the Dem was near guaranteed the win.

I'd have liked to see Rudy Giuliani back in the mix, but it is what it is.



Kirata -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 12:27:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetCheri

1) Are any of these candidates really who you would want running your country?

No. I like Ron Paul for many reasons, but I can't get behind the whole package.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetCheri

2) Would any of them be your first choice regardless of who else was running?

No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetCheri

3) Who would you have preferred to see run?

Actually he is, but the Party and the media are ignoring him. Gary Johnson.

K.



subrob1967 -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 12:33:49 AM)

FR


To answer your first question, the best and brightest conservatives don't want to go through the dirt slinging that conservatives have to deal with. The majority of the press is left leaning here, so liberals get the kid glove treatment compared to conservatives.

None of the current crop are in my top ten, but even Gingritch would be better than the current President.

Mitch Daniels is my dream candidate, I wouldn't have minded Mike Pence either, but he chose the Governors race instead.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 2:20:33 AM)

I'll respond as a conservative, which isnt the same as a Republican.

1) Romney, Gingrich, ABO
2) Romney
3) No one else for 2012. There is a fantastic crop of up and coming conservatives but they arent ready for prime time, just as Obama has proven he isnt.



DarkSteven -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 2:53:59 AM)

Cheri,

1. A sitting President looks a lot more Presidential than the folks with no Presidential experience running against him. 
2. There are some candidates who are low on experience, especially Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain.  A legit response from a Republican would be that Obama had little experience when he was a candidate as well.
3. Gingrich is two people.   When he opens his mouth and talks, he's intelligent and capable. When he actually DOES anything, he's immature and self-serving, and liable to destroy support and alliances.
4. Romney, Huntsman, and Paul are actually not that bad candidates.  I think of Paul like I think of America, though - a wonderful thing in principle that has never been fully implemented.
5. It used to be that the VP position was a springboard to a Presidential run.  Cheney declined to run, and that left a vacuum in the party.  The previous crop of GOP candidates - Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc., weren't any more impressive than this batch. 
6. The Bush administration destroyed the Republican party for a while.  They ruled the GOP pretty strongly and didn't permit any intraparty dissent, even while plumbing new depths of unpopularity.  The main reason that McCain won the nomination IMO was that he was the candidate least aligned with the Bushies, and one of the main reasons that Obama won the nomination was that he was one of the few to vote against the Iraq disaster.  In other words, the Bush administration was so toxic that anyone who had worked with them was at a disadvantage. 
7. Generally speaking, governors have big advantages over Senators.  There's the fact that governors look like solitary, powerful figures while Senators look like members of a group (a not very popular group).  (I have no idea why Christie, Pawlenty, etc., did not get more traction.)  Senators have a long history of voting on various bills, and for negative campaigning purposes it is simple to cherry pick through previous votes to find attack material.  Basically, experience is not always your friend here.
8. Ideology is becoming more important than accomplishment.  Style over substance.



truckinslave -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 3:56:37 AM)

Your questions have no meaning- voting comes down to making a choice between real people with real flaws who nevertheless are in the ring.

1. Compared to Obama? Absolutely. Even Huntsman. Maybe even Paul.

2. Absolutely not. But Reagan is no longer available.

3. Barbour. Daniels. LaPierre.



thishereboi -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 6:27:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SweetCheri

Well coming here has been a real eye-opening learning experience with regards to American politics. I had no idea!
This isn't american politics, this is cm. Big difference

Anyway, I have developed a cursory interest and have sort of tried to follow things both here and elsewhere. One of the things I'm struck by from watching each one rise to the top of the pack only to self-destruct, is the really low quality of the candidates vying for the Republican nomination. My questions for the Republicans and other right-leaning posters on here are:

1) Are any of these candidates really who you would want running your country?
Nope
2) Would any of them be your first choice regardless of who else was running?
No
3) Who would you have preferred to see run?
Morgan Freeman




SweetCheri -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 6:57:25 AM)

Thanks for answering guys.



xxblushesxx -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 7:10:46 AM)

I'm also a conservative, but you have to register as something in order to vote in certain elections, so I am registered republican (even if I don't identify as such.) [8|]

1. I'm unsure. I really like Cain, but he screwed that up. (literally)
2. I'm unhappy with the candidates on any side. (including the guy in office now)
3. Condoleezza Rice would make a fine president, in my opinion.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 7:40:27 AM)

She asked Republicans. Are you switching? Apparently not from statement 1 which is the first joke I read today. [:D]
Actually I dont disagree violently with the rest except the reason that McCain won. He was seen as a middle of the road candidate and the appetite for the more conservative Romney or Huckabee wasnt there yet. And of course I agree with 5 as a statement, but not the intent..this group isnt MORE impressive, but compared to Obama as a candidate and Obama as a POTUS they are ALL very impressive.

Oh yeah...6. Destroryed the Republican party for a while? You might have missed the 2010 elections.

Christie is too new. He'll be a presence in the future. Pawlenty did nothing to differentiate himself from the rest. He isnt black, he isnt a woman, he doesnt have the combined business and political experience Romney has, but his platform was the same as the above.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Cheri,

1. A sitting President looks a lot more Presidential than the folks with no Presidential experience running against him. 
2. There are some candidates who are low on experience, especially Bachmann, Santorum, and Cain.  A legit response from a Republican would be that Obama had little experience when he was a candidate as well.
3. Gingrich is two people.   When he opens his mouth and talks, he's intelligent and capable. When he actually DOES anything, he's immature and self-serving, and liable to destroy support and alliances.
4. Romney, Huntsman, and Paul are actually not that bad candidates.  I think of Paul like I think of America, though - a wonderful thing in principle that has never been fully implemented.
5. It used to be that the VP position was a springboard to a Presidential run.  Cheney declined to run, and that left a vacuum in the party.  The previous crop of GOP candidates - Romney, McCain, Huckabee, etc., weren't any more impressive than this batch. 
6. The Bush administration destroyed the Republican party for a while.  They ruled the GOP pretty strongly and didn't permit any intraparty dissent, even while plumbing new depths of unpopularity.  The main reason that McCain won the nomination IMO was that he was the candidate least aligned with the Bushies, and one of the main reasons that Obama won the nomination was that he was one of the few to vote against the Iraq disaster.  In other words, the Bush administration was so toxic that anyone who had worked with them was at a disadvantage. 
7. Generally speaking, governors have big advantages over Senators.  There's the fact that governors look like solitary, powerful figures while Senators look like members of a group (a not very popular group).  (I have no idea why Christie, Pawlenty, etc., did not get more traction.)  Senators have a long history of voting on various bills, and for negative campaigning purposes it is simple to cherry pick through previous votes to find attack material.  Basically, experience is not always your friend here.
8. Ideology is becoming more important than accomplishment.  Style over substance.





Kirata -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 7:52:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

She asked Republicans.

Well I'm not a Republican either. I'm a registered Independent. But I've been leaning toward the Republicans for a candidate I can support. Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee, and in my opinion he's proved himself to be an empty suit.

Unfortunately, looks like no cigar.

K.



slvemike4u -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:08:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

We go through this all the time, Cheri. Last run with the Dems, we had a former First Lady, a personal injury lawyer, and a novelty candidate who had never run anything in his life, in an election cycle where the Dem was near guaranteed the win.

I'd have liked to see Rudy Giuliani back in the mix, but it is what it is.

I am always surprised to see anyone put forth Giuliani as Presidential material....what is never surprising is that it is never an actual New Yorker doing so.Rich I was a citizen of New York on Sept 10 2001 and I along with most of my fellow denizens of that great city were anxiously awaiting his exit from office.He was a divisive polarizing force in Gracie Mansion.He engaged in policies designed to merely give the vaneer of improving life in that city,he had the NYPD scooping up the homeless and depositing them in other juristicions,he waged a war against squeegie workers(the homeless who would acost motorists at red lights)he directed the police department to write tickets to folks enjoying a cold beer on their own stoops.
In short he engaged in little more than window dressing,calling them quality of life crimes....actively instucted precint heads to "fudge" crime statistics to once again give the appearence ofactually accomplishing something.
He became "America's Mayor" on 9/11.....New Yorkers couldn't wait for him to assume that office full time.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:25:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

She asked Republicans.

Well I'm not a Republican either. I'm a registered Independent. But I've been leaning toward the Republicans for a candidate I can support. Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee, and in my opinion he's proved himself to be an empty suit.

Unfortunately, looks like no cigar.

K.


I see you more as an indie. Close enoujgh. DS? Idealogue lol



SweetCheri -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:26:53 AM)

Just a quick request to everybody, could we all avoid discussing the merits of individuals answers in this thread, I really am only interested in knowing how those on the right feel about the current crop of candidates being offered to them.

There's a bazillion other threads available to chop up any individual one of them or their chances, so please go to one of those threads to do that.

Thanks.

Oh and to those who have answered, again, a big Merci. I am going to do a little research on some of the lesser known people who have been mentioned.



Owner59 -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:32:52 AM)

There really are no "conservatives" anymore in the GOP.

By conservative,I mean what it used to mean.

At this point,con-men and woman will say and do almost anything,even opposite things(if they think they can get away w/ it) if they think it will advantage them.

They pay only lip service to the old conservative principles but act like people with no principles at all.Good examples of this are the two front runners.

The proper term now is "neo-conservative",or "new-conservative",which doesn`t look anything like what old-school conservatives look like.


From taxes to moral issues and from foreign policy to keeping government out of our lives,it`s all optional to neo-cons.Anything goes.

Check out Ron Paul.He is about as close to a real,honest and principled American conservative as thy come.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To answer the knuckle-draggers......Rudy would go up and then crash under his own weight,or "baggage"(and it would be ugly),just like the other GOP-losers.

And FYI,the dems didn`t lose the last election.The electorate chose to keep the majority of government power, in democratic hands.The next election, will produce a similar situation.The only question is how badly the republicans with lose



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:37:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

There really are no "conservatives" anymore in the GOP.

By conservative,I mean what it used to mean.

At this point,con-men and woman will say and do almost anything to get elected,even opposite things(if they think they can get away w/ it).

They pay only lip service to the old conservative principles but act like people with no principles at all.Good examples of this are the two front runners.

The proper term is "neo-conservative",or "new-conservative",which doesn`t look anything like what old-school conservatives look like.


From taxes to moral issues and from foreign policy to keeping government out of our lives,it`s all optional to no-cons.Anything goes.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To answer the knuckle-draggers......Rudy would go up and then crash under his own weight,or "baggage"(and it would be ugly),just like the other GOP-losers.

And FYI,the dems didn`t lose the last election.The electorate chose to keep the majority of government power, in democratic hands.The next election, will produce a similar situation.The only question is how badly the republicans with lose



Showing your cluelessness once again, dragging out the "neo-con" meme. You might want to research the history and positions of the "neo-cons". Hint: they dont exist anymore.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:49:02 AM)

That's really interesting Owner59, but just what does it have to do with the topic?

Nothing at all, that's what. Nothing at all.



Owner59 -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:54:36 AM)

Out of sheer embarrassment,neo-cons are hiding from the term they themselves coined.


My points about zero principles are what differentiates the two types of today`s conservatives.


The most accurate term would be the opposition.They call themselves conservatives and run as republicans but they aren`t doing,in real life,what old-school conservative principles say.

They now are social-engineering,anti-middle-class ,get into your private life,nation-building big-government borrow and spenders.

Accept for people like Ron Paul.

And Paul is honest which also separates him from neo-cons.



Owner59 -> RE: Honest questions for the Republicans from a clueless Canuck (12/4/2011 8:58:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

That's really interesting Owner59, but just what does it have to do with the topic?

Nothing at all, that's what. Nothing at all.


I gave my example.Ron Paul.

And a little back story never hurt.lol





Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
3.515625E-02