NationStates Jolt Archive

After watching the Republican debate and the re-run on FOX last week, I was quite impressed by Huckabee. However, I don't think he has a snowballs chance of winning the nomination.

Of the three major contenders in the race who were present I must say I am very impressed by Giuliani. I don't agree with him on several issues such as abortion and gun control but a President doesn't make law and I'll never find a candidate I can agree with 100%. One of the reasons I like Giuliani is he is not a Washington insider.

I wish Thompson had participated in the debate. He might be a good candidate and he agrees with my view on gun control and abortion. However, he is a Washington insider. He served two terms in the Senate. I'll have to keep an eye on him.

One reason I would never vote for Paul is I don't want a President waving a pen at me during every speech for 4-8 years. :D

I'm going to remain an Independent so I won't get to vote in the primary, so unless some really good third party candidate comes along, I hope the Republicans choose wisely. No, I won't vote Democrat. You all know how I feel about the Queen. :D

So, who would you like to see as the Republican candidate and why?

Mike Huckabee sucks for this reason....

LINK (http://youtube.com/watch?v=azLwD89h4xI) 22minutes is lolz

I guess I like McCain....

I'd vote for someone like Duncan Hunter or Brownback or Tancredo--but just because I want to see the Democrats win 50 states instead of the 40 they're likely to win if things keep going the way they are.

I'd vote for someone like Duncan Hunter or Brownback or Tancredo--but just because I want to see the Democrats win 50 states instead of the 40 they're likely to win if things keep going the way they are.

Duncan Hunter sounds like a porn star...

If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, McCain. If Obama gets the Democratic nomination, Tancredo.

You have trancendo as a poll option...

Huckabee is an idiot. He doesn't think evolution. Anyone who doesn't think evolution happened is not fit to be POTUS. Giuliani is an asshole. He just blabs out standard political garbage like the terrorists attacked us for our freedom.

I really only like Ron Paul from the Republicans, but I might consider Romney, McCain, or Thompson.

I'd vote for someone like Duncan Hunter or Brownback or Tancredo--but just because I want to see the Democrats win 50 states instead of the 40 they're likely to win if things keep going the way they are.


Quite the optimist, eh? :D

You do realize though that people will still vote party lines, no matter who the candidate is, or they won't vote at all. So perhaps this election will be a no show because there are no worthy candidates?

Huckabee is an idiot. He doesn't think evolution. Anyone who doesn't think evolution happened is not fit to be POTUS. Giuliani is an asshole. He just blabs out standard political garbage like the terrorists attacked us for our freedom.

I really only like Ron Paul from the Republicans, but I might consider Romney, McCain, or Thompson.

Huckabee got points for saying his views on evolution didn't matter, but he supports the Fair Tax.

*buzzer* Next.

I'd vote for someone like Duncan Hunter or Brownback or Tancredo--but just because I want to see the Democrats win 50 states instead of the 40 they're likely to win if things keep going the way they are.

We'll be lucky to win the election.

Even though I miss suffrage by six months, should Ron Paul make the nomination, I'd likely vote red.

Constitution ftw.

So, who would you like to see as the Republican candidate and why?

No one, they all suck right now.

Quite the optimist, eh? :D

You do realize though that people will still vote party lines, no matter who the candidate is, or they won't vote at all. So perhaps this election will be a no show because there are no worthy candidates?

There will be an election, no question, but if the independents continue favoring the Democrats like they have since the middle of 2006--and at present, there's no reason to think they'll change, since the Republican candidates are still favoring the status quo--then the Democrats may well top 54-55%. That's landslide territory.

54-55%. That's landslide territory.

A little more than 50% is a landslide? :confused: I could see 75% as a landslide, but a little more 50%? :confused:

Giuliani isn't so bad, but then again for a Republican that's kinda like saying Melanoma isn't bad for cancer.

After watching the Republican debate and the re-run on FOX last week, I was quite impressed by Huckabee. However, I don't think he has a snowballs chance of winning the nomination.

Of the three major contenders in the race who were present I must say I am very impressed by Giuliani. I don't agree with him on several issues such as abortion and gun control but a President doesn't make law and I'll never find a candidate I can agree with 100%. One of the reasons I like Giuliani is he is not a Washington insider.

I wish Thompson had participated in the debate. He might be a good candidate and he agrees with my view on gun control and abortion. However, he is a Washington insider. He served two terms in the Senate. I'll have to keep an eye on him.

One reason I would never vote for Paul is I don't want a President waving a pen at me during every speech for 4-8 years. :D

I'm going to remain an Independent so I won't get to vote in the primary, so unless some really good third party candidate comes along, I hope the Republicans choose wisely. No, I won't vote Democrat. You all know how I feel about the Queen. :D

So, who would you like to see as the Republican candidate and why?

I would vote for Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo, just to watch the hilarity as the Republicans fail miserably...though even thinking of casting a vote for Tancredo makes me feel so disgusted...(As I've said many times, I have to deal with him as a Representative. Not fun.)

Why is his name misspelled in the poll, though?

And another thing: WHY DO PEOPLE FUCKING THINK HAVING EXPERIENCE IN WASHINGTON MAKES YOU A POORER CANDIDATE?!

Son of a FUCK I am so SICK of hearing that! It's so stupid! Wouldn't having that experience actually HELP since as the President you WORK IN FUCKING WASHINGTON?!

FUCK! :headbang:

And another thing: WHY DO PEOPLE FUCKING THINK HAVING EXPERIENCE IN WASHINGTON MAKES YOU A POORER CANDIDATE?!

Son of a FUCK I am so SICK of hearing that! It's so stupid! Wouldn't having that experience actually HELP since as the President you WORK IN FUCKING WASHINGTON?!

FUCK! :headbang:

Possibly because of what the people who have experience in Washington have done to the American people?

Have you ever read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders?

If not, I suggest you do so as it is very enlightnining.

Where's the "whichever candidate would ensure a GOP defeat in the general election" option?

Where's the "whichever candidate would ensure a GOP defeat in the general election" option?

That's every option.

Possibly because of what the people who have experience in Washington have done to the American people?

Have you ever read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders?

If not, I suggest you do so as it is very enlightnining.

...

So basically, what you're saying is that people with the experience to work with Congress, with the Supreme Court, with everything else bureaucratically speaking in Washington are always bad for the country.

In other words, you're saying we should always toss in unexperienced people who wouldn't know what the fuck they're doing and thus would make things worse?

Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. I'd much rather trust someone with experience in that sort of thing than someone without. Unless you're trying to say that we're just electing the best of the worst all the time...

...

So basically, what you're saying is that people with the experience to work with Congress, with the Supreme Court, with everything else bureaucratically speaking in Washington are always bad for the country.

In other words, you're saying we should always toss in unexperienced people who wouldn't know what the fuck they're doing and thus would make things worse?

Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. I'd much rather trust someone with experience in that sort of thing than someone without. Unless you're trying to say that we're just electing the best of the worst all the time...

Read the book and then you will understand what I'm trying to say. Even though people go to Congress with good intentions after they have been there a while they are more interested in getting reelected and less interested in doing the will of the people. I'm all for term limits, three terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators.

A little more than 50% is a landslide? :confused: I could see 75% as a landslide, but a little more 50%? :confused:

When you're talking about 120 million votes, 5 percentage points is 6 million votes. That's a landslide by nearly any measure.

Read the book and then you will understand what I'm trying to say. Even though people go to Congress with good intentions after they have been there a while they are more interested in getting reelected and less interested in doing the will of the people. I'm all for term limits, three terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators.

I think arbitrary term limits are a bad idea all the way around. A better idea is to reduce the advantage the incumbents have by being able to disguise campaign functions as official business, reduce the influence of lobbyists by, well, outlawing them and going to public financing of elections, and by getting rid of gerrymandering to make elections more competitive. You're always going to have some safe seats--you couldn't carve a Republican seat out of San Francisco if you tried--but you can significantly reduce them by taking district drawing out of the hands of state legislators and putting them in the hands of bipartisan or nonpartisan groups who have to follow rules regarding the ways districts are shaped.

Just to annoy everybody, I voted for Trancendo... the name sounds mystical, isn't it?

And perhaps Kyronea's congressional district will boot him out of a job next year, why won't we allow him to apply for a new job? ;) (though he won't win even by a long shot... hehe. good for Democrats.)

I think arbitrary term limits are a bad idea all the way around. A better idea is to reduce the advantage the incumbents have by being able to disguise campaign functions as official business, reduce the influence of lobbyists by, well, outlawing them and going to public financing of elections, and by getting rid of gerrymandering to make elections more competitive. You're always going to have some safe seats--you couldn't carve a Republican seat out of San Francisco if you tried--but you can significantly reduce them by taking district drawing out of the hands of state legislators and putting them in the hands of bipartisan or nonpartisan groups who have to follow rules regarding the ways districts are shaped.

More or less. I don't agree with eliminating all lobbeying...there are plenty of good lobbeying groups, such as the ACLU, after all.

I just have a problem with people who say having experience in Washington makes you unfit to work there. It's ludicrous. Are there people who just abuse their position and use it to stay in power rather than do anything to help people? Sure. Is EVERYONE with experience in Washington like that? No. It's just another drawing together of people into groups without considering the fact that no two people are alike.

Brutland and Norden: My family and many others have been trying to get rid of him for years but he still stays..he did win reelection in 2006. Thing is, most people in this district are party-aligned Republicans who don't pay attention to politicians except when elections are running, and during elections Tancredo actually acts as if he's a sane, responsible person. He pretends just long enough to get reelected, then returns to his idiotic racist self. It's ludicrous.

That's every option.

Not so because the Democrats are retarded and will nominate Hillary. Any one of these candidates is hated less than the bitch.

Brutland and Norden: My family and many others have been trying to get rid of him for years but he still stays..he did win reelection in 2006. Thing is, most people in this district are party-aligned Republicans who don't pay attention to politicians except when elections are running, and during elections Tancredo actually acts as if he's a sane, responsible person. He pretends just long enough to get reelected, then returns to his idiotic racist self. It's ludicrous.
Sounds to me that he's like an itch that folks can't stop scratching.

Not so because the Democrats are retarded and will nominate Hillary. Any one of these candidates is hated less than the bitch.

Maybe to you, but despite your delusions to the contrary, you are not the arbiter of all political taste in the US, or even the arbiter of the majority. In the 15+ years Clinton has been in public life, her unfavorable ratings have pretty much topped out in the mid 40% range. They've been falling in the last 6 months, in the face of repeated attacks. She's not even in my top 3 choices of Democrats for the nomination, but thinking that she's so hated that she would automatically lose is just another sign of your short-sightedness.

Not so because the Democrats are retarded and will nominate Hillary. Any one of these candidates is hated less than the bitch.

I don't care for Clinton at all, but her Senate campaign suggests that she's an excellent campaigner and while people may have an immediate negative reaction to her, many of them will view her more favorably by election time. Clinton's polarizing effect has become somewhat mythological; it'll be there, but it won't be as big as a lot of people are expecting.

If things go the way they are, none of the above. I think our best chance of anyone who has a snowball's chance in Hell of winning is either Michael Savage if he ran, or Newt Gingrich.

Of course, if Hillary runs, I'll choose anyone over her.

If I had to pick a Republican, it would be Ron Paul. And I don't like him at all, I just tolerate him the most out of any of them.

For a long time, I've thought the name Huckabee looked familiar, but I could never quite place it.
Now, I just remembered where I've seen the name before now: On that horrible movie "I <3 Huckabees." God, that sucked, and so, through the power of association, Huckabee must suck as well.
So I'll vote for anyone who promises to kick Huckabee in the crotch. Unless the person who makes that promise Huckabee himself, because I hate him just that much.

Sounds to me that he's like an itch that folks can't stop scratching.

That's one way to look at it, certainly. He's a foul itch caused by a nasty disease.