2012 US Republican Presidential Candidates

[Gilly]

Ron Paul. Vote or die.

[Gilly]

Seriously, would everyone who gives a shit please start micro-campaigning for Ron Paul? Our economy is in the shitter and these pathetic career politician insider creeps are talking about going to war with Iran. I mean, what the fuck?

[717495]

No need to apologize on the behalf of others.

[glam]

damn am i the only person here who isn't into Ron Paul/libertarianism? this semester all i saw all over my university campus was Ron Paul this and that, "Vote Ron Paul!" written in chalk all over the sidewalks, his campaign bumper stickers on student's cars, etc.

[JRiddy]

The exact mechanics might be different, but the result is the same in Germany and all other european countries.

Yeah, I was thinking to myself as I was writing it, that this basically describes any modern democratic process. It's kind of the crux of why I think democracy is awful.

Agreed, at least concerning this form of "democracy".

Links to information on a very relevant book: Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Herman Hoppe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democra...od_That_Failed

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Econ.../dp/0765808684

http://mises.org/hoppeintro.asp

[Beautiful sky]

Yeah, Mitt Romney is a definite controlling Te-LSE; he's also a disgusting and a horrid man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...ffington+Post)

[munenori2]

I....agree with maritsa???

[Korpsy Knievel]

I....agree with maritsa???

To be unceasingly wrong requires no less an astonishing genius than it does to be unerringly right.

[Aquagraph]

I....agree with maritsa???

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Aquagraph]

[Ave]

Newt Gingrich - Ti-ESTp
Ron Paul - Ni-INFp. He gives off the vibe of a beta NF but doesnt seem extroverted and has that "deer in headlights" vibe. He also has mesmerizing intonations when he speaks publically.
Rick Santorum - ENFp. Hes a bit wooden when he speaks like John Kerry was and is poltically correct.
Mitt Romney: ESTj. He seems like he can show aggression when he has to but doesnt value being seen as an "aggressive person".

[marooned]

I've started forming the opinion that Newt is a Te type. He may be badly in need of Fi. He is ethically odd.

I think that Newt is just a little crazy. However, I'd much rather he be in office than Romney. I associate Romney with the ultimate evil, wearing his pasty grin on top. I have vilified him in my mind. He is a typeless inhuman creature. He is a chameleon who says whatever will win favor, although perhaps he isn't always great at knowing what that will be. These forming views on Romney should not be posted because they constitute an idiot opinion.

I still think all the republicans are nuts. But I don't see Romney as a republican. He is not of any party.

And Newt's wife is an alien (I've been informed). She will bring the technological know-how regarding the moon base. We can't successfully build it without help from a more advanced civilization. This makes me wonder if Newt is also an alien, and what nafarious plans the two of them might have for planet Earth.

But it is "refreshing" to hear a republican say that we'll waste billions or trillions of dollars building a moon base rather than wasting it going to war. It reminds me of Bush Jr. who also had a sort of fascination with doing things on the moon. I can't really believe that Newt is serious about the moon base. It's really hard to tell. I wondered if he said it because a candidate must make these bold, impossible and unachievable claims as part of their campaign. You can't get much more bold and impossible than building a moon base. It is an absurd objective. Maybe it was a Bush reference. Perhaps it was a whimsical statement. At first thought, a moon base would just be really interesting, until of course the rational brain kicks in and whispers: now is not the time to colonize the moon. What do we gain by colonizing the moon when we factor in what we lose? I think that Newt's wife and her kind want to live on the moon. This tells me that they aren't in fact all evil. They don't want to interfere in human affairs (yet), but just want a colony to themselves. I mean if they were trying to harm us, surely they'd operate on the Earth. It's nonsensical to operate from the moon in a take over of the earth. What can you do on the moon that you couldn't more easily do on the Earth with your advanced alien tech? It's a good sign that she wants to live there.

If Newt becomes the republican candidate I feel there's a better chance of Obama winning the election, which is my preference. Romney I see as more of a "secret weapon." He could pull something unexpected out of his chameleon cap and suddenly gain popularity. If he can be appealing to people who are dissatisfied with Obama and are on the line often between liberal and conservative, that would be bad. Newt I don't believe has a chance. Although he seems to be unshakable in his (apparent) belief that he does. This alarms me. I think confidence can take one a long way.

Also I really agreed with Newt about not thinking it appropriate to question him about his marriages and relationships during presidential debates. Seriously. Who cares. We're not electing people to be our husbands, we're electing them to run the country. Unless they're some sort of sadist with a history of violence towards SOs (which would to me imply a possibly very dangerous world leader--someone who lives to hurt others), why does it matter?

[717495]

Ron Paul's too adorable to be Fe

[Gilly]

Newt Gingrich is a slimeball.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[marooned]

When I compare this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/energy/our-environment) and this (http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/06/gi...giant-mirrors/), really the former looks better to me. I for some reason don't really believe that Gingrich cares about the environment. Not that I expect anyone to really solve the world's problems. But it would be nice to look back say 10 years from now and see that the oceans are actually getting healthier rather than worse, that the ocean ecosystem isn't on the brink of a collapse, and that the look for threatened, vulnerable and endangered species is on the up in populations rather than getting worse/going extinct. This is really what I care about the most these days. The global economy is highly relevant to all of this, but I feel like it's a big monster that no one knows how to tame. It can't be controlled. It's sending everything down into the shit hole all by itself. I guess what I want is a lifestyle change. I don't simply want more improved ways of getting oil or something, or great inventions that are still largely wasteful but they use "less" oil. I want a transition to a way of life that is not focused on growing the beast that is the economy (or at least this economy). I don't know what this means in more practical terms. I find it depressing to look at just sticking with our same way of doing things only trying to do it better as though rich white guys are trying to relive what they perceive as the "glory of the old days." I don't want to go back in time. I want to realize that what is here now is a giant mess (and to not understate just how bad everything really is), and that we have to start fixing it now. It's not about everyone having 3 family cars that are all hybrids (I think that's just an excuse, a way to feel like the problem is being confronted without actually solving it... it's like saying you'll have just 1 cigarette a week because you can't face that really you have to stop smoking period and there just isn't going to be something partially satisfying, that your whole life has to change, your habits). When people go on and on about jobs and the economy I feel like they're not even in the right ballpark. I know that prosperous nations can be better Earth stewards in a way. People who aren't starving to death are not so desperate to destroy everything for short term gain. I guess that I want the worldview to move to being a little less anthropocentric in the prosperous nations. I think we're just being primates--we're doing what primates do on a large scale. We love our cultures and our gadgets and our social games and our fighting, etc. I'm sure the average little monkey in a tree would love to be some giant celebrity with a big house and all this power and access to food and interesting things, and at the social and cultural top of things. I just wish that we were less materialistic. I've been longing more and more to divorce myself from society. I just look around and everything is about materialism. I feel drowned out of my soul living in it. And the jobs that we're aiming to create in the economy. Who wants them anyway? Like what percentage of people really love their job? If the economy improves will I suddenly be happy? Anyway maybe the Newt strategy could create a better world in eight years, but I really don't know which way would create something better, or if it even matters. I do think there may be a point in that building bureaucracy upon bureaucracy just isn't the way to go. I don't understand why it's so difficult to create a world where people are free to survive and follow their own interests (why the two have to so often be mutually exclusive).

[Ave]

But it is "refreshing" to hear a republican say that we'll waste billions or trillions of dollars building a moon base rather than wasting it going to war. It reminds me of Bush Jr. who also had a sort of fascination with doing things on the moon. I can't really believe that Newt is serious about the moon base. It's really hard to tell. I wondered if he said it because a candidate must make these bold, impossible and unachievable claims as part of their campaign. You can't get much more bold and impossible than building a moon base. It is an absurd objective. Maybe it was a Bush reference. Perhaps it was a whimsical statement. At first thought, a moon base would just be really interesting, until of course the rational brain kicks in and whispers: now is not the time to colonize the moon. What do we gain by colonizing the moon when we factor in what we lose? I think that Newt's wife and her kind want to live on the moon. This tells me that they aren't in fact all evil. They don't want to interfere in human affairs (yet), but just want a colony to themselves. I mean if they were trying to harm us, surely they'd operate on the Earth. It's nonsensical to operate from the moon in a take over of the earth. What can you do on the moon that you couldn't more easily do on the Earth with your advanced alien tech? It's a good sign that she wants to live there.

I actually think the lunar colony is a good idea but not for those who deserve to stay on earth. That ball of dirt is alot more beautiful from earth. Only people who dont deserve the earth can go to the moon - which includes Newt and his Christian fanaticism.

[Ave]

Ron Paul's too adorable to be Fe

Maybe you could tell us what type you think he is then?

Edit: nevermind.

[Raver]

[marooned]

Well, Newt probably makes a shitload of money as well.

Although it looks like Romney is richer than Gingrich, I suspect they both may be equally clever in reducing their taxes, even if Gingrich paid more tax: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...xes_01-24.html

It does annoy me that the wealthy are paying less tax than middle class Americans (percentage-wise) and I don't understand why this is perceived as "acceptable." And it annoys me that very wealthy people may find yet more ways to pay less tax in an endless investment blizzard the likes of which I can't understand. It just disturbs me. What if you make $28,000,000 and then you have to pay 50% tax. Oh dear, now you're down to $14,000,000 and if that's too little for you a year, well, I can't understand you and your way of life at all. I mean that is just not a hit. It wouldn't be nearly the hit that paying 40% tax on $120,000 a year would be, for instance.

Anyway I think that what I fail to understand is the complexity of the impact of the super wealthy on the economy. Maybe they're like the top economic predators that drive the rest of it. Maybe it's the mysterious "trickle down" effect. Without these economic pillars perhaps the whole system would collapse. I just don't get it.

Well I suppose Gingrich's yearly earnings appear modest next to Romney's but anyway.

[munenori2]

What can you do on the moon that you couldn't more easily do on the Earth with your advanced alien tech?

Blow it up!

I was spitballing a general idea in my head last week about whether it would be useful or harmful or whatever if there were some form of wage controls, like maybe the highest paid people couldn't make more than 50 times the yearly salary of a full time minimum wage worker. I mean if you think about it you're still making more in one year than they'll make in their entire working career, and that would be roughly 850k a year. I know I know there are economic arguments that there'd be brain drain or whatever to other countries where there weren't wage caps, but I think it would provide incentives to raise the minimum wage, lower the labor costs of corporations (the problem being that they're pretty globablized now, so not sure how that would work) and small businesses, and presumably this reduced overhead would translate into reduced price of goods. That's a real simple way of looking at it and I'll still running it through some mental paces. Maybe I'll read some economics or something. There's that whole non-salary related pay issue (like stocks or profit sharing, etc), and then the issue of building wealth versus those who are also waay waaaay on top already (people like Romney who no one under this system could ever reach).

Well I suppose Gingrich's yearly earnings appear modest next to Romney's but anyway.

I think if elected, Romney would be the third richest president behind Thomas Jefferson and Georgio Wash.

[Gilly]

Fuck Mitt Romney
Fuck Newt Gingrich

No more blood for money

[Ave]

Fuck Mitt Romney
Fuck Newt Gingrich

Amen brother

[Raver]

I was spitballing a general idea in my head last week about whether it would be useful or harmful or whatever if there were some form of wage controls, like maybe the highest paid people couldn't make more than 50 times the yearly salary of a full time minimum wage worker. I mean if you think about it you're still making more in one year than they'll make in their entire working career, and that would be roughly 850k a year. I know I know there are economic arguments that there'd be brain drain or whatever to other countries where there weren't wage caps, but I think it would provide incentives to raise the minimum wage, lower the labor costs of corporations (the problem being that they're pretty globablized now, so not sure how that would work) and small businesses, and presumably this reduced overhead would translate into reduced price of goods. That's a real simple way of looking at it and I'll still running it through some mental paces. Maybe I'll read some economics or something. There's that whole non-salary related pay issue (like stocks or profit sharing, etc), and then the issue of building wealth versus those who are also waay waaaay on top already (people like Romney who no one under this system could ever reach).

I see what you're trying to argue, but what you're proposing is basically socialism and I used to have similar ideas like this before. I'm not saying that socialism is a good or bad thing because it depends on your individual perspective. I think a more practical strategy would be to tax the rich more heavily than the poor. So you could tax the poor 10%, the middle class 20% and the rich 30%. Though I guess people would cry socialism for proposing that. Personally, I think a flat tax rate wouldn't be a bad idea either considering that the rich roughly get taxed half of what poor people get taxed in the United States percentage wise.

[Beautiful sky]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...-the-very-poor

he earned 21 million dollars and paid less then 15% in taxes and american people can even let him run for the presidency. He should be eliminated based on greed.

[marooned]

Well about Newt Gingrich's tax plan...

http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112120012

Hopefully, that analysis is accurate enough because I am unable to interpret what the tables available in the next link say/mean.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxto...grich-plan.cfm

There's also this interesting little article comparing what Romney would be paying in Gingrich's plan (if the 15% flat rate) vs. what he would be paying in his own plan.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...xes/52647894/1

Also, I think that I need to step back a bit from drawing conclusions about Romney's taxes. I feel too ignorant to draw any conclusions about his taxes at this point. If Romney isn't actually making current money through some sort of "work" then I don't know what I think is fair or not.

This is back to the liberal/conservative debate really. Conservatives always want to cut taxes for the wealthy and increase taxes for those lower down. It's easy to assume the reason is out of greed. But I always feel like these things are "step 1" of some larger economic plan that never goes to fruition. I want to give the benefit of the doubt. But I think the truth may be that a highly rich conservative person is like a dragon sitting on its treasure. That's their money and they shouldn't have to give any of it to the government. They earned it fair and square. They dream of a nation where they can be truly autonomous to do whatever they want (and they don't really care about everyone else who are the lesser people anyway since they did not seize such power), to freely earn money and to keep it. Why would you want to pay large amounts of your money to fuel things like social services? How would that seem fair to you that you constantly have to dish out to the "have-nots"? I mean you'd probably just want to build your own little kingdom for you and your family (aiming to achieve happiness through prosperity).

What I think does seem to be clear is that Gingrich's "flat rate" doesn't seem fair.

To post another article that I don't know if it's accurate: http://www.economicpopulist.org/cont...orn-it-america

My suspicion (which is somewhat supported by that article) is that a lot of the rich were simply born into it. In that case their families are carrying on a sort of elite heritage from generation to generation. (It's helpful then to have conservative values because they don't want to lose their power and prestige... they are centered on conserving what they have.) I don't see this as being particularly different from how things have always been in the world. It's a seizing of power and keeping one's family in power. Whether it's political power or economic advantage really doesn't matter to me. And even if one has some sort of survival of the fittest philosophy about it (which I don't) that still doesn't mean that an increasing gap between the rich and poor where we create more and more poor people is not a concern. Poor people are more likely to have more kids than less poor people, who will likely all be poor too. Who really wants to grow the world's poor? That creates all sorts of problems: more ignorance, more disease, more war, more unskilled people, probably more psychological illness, and just more freaking people (aren't there enough already?). Really, I think it's in the best interest of the wealthy to not grow the poor. It gets tricky at the middle-class level though because if you grow the middle-class they could start treading upon the wealthy's power base. So it's good (for the wealthy) that conservative plans often try to hold down the middle class (rein them in, as it were).

Anyway, I think that a lot of people really don't understand how shaped one is by the world that they grow up into, particularly how it shapes and orients them psychologically. Being poor is not simply a state of affairs, it's a state of mind. Humans are incredibly sensitive and impressionable and we absorb and learn incredibly well. We rely so much on what we learn that it makes us kind of like sponges. It is only human that more people born into one economic bracket tend to stay there. It's not that they are somehow "lesser" people. The "idiocy" of the poor is a lot more about learning and culture than it is about genetics, imo. So those people who are welfare moms that everyone likes to bash on, it's not necessarily that they were genetically inferior or stupid or something... they downloaded program Poor 7.0 or whatever we're on now and like the good little learning humans they are, they excel at it. I'm not saying it's impossible to move beyond this in the US (clearly it is not), but I think that if you grow up poor you often have to work 2-3 times as hard (at least) to get ahead than someone who was born into a family with more prosperity. And often times you have other problems as a result of being poor (such as bad mental health and low energy) and so you may not be "fit" enough for the struggle.

So anyway, it is not equal opportunity, and I think that the conservative worldview likes to pretend that it is. But you can't just look outside and ignore what is in people's heads. I just feel like a lot people are in the dark ages regarding the psychology of what it is to be human, which baffles me because since they are human surely they can grasp how sensitive a human is. I don't see it as a giant leap of the imagination.

Anyway as time has went on, more and more culture is changing to recognize that other people have a right to live too, to live a full life. But since we can't have obvious slavery anymore (that's now recognized as a violation of people's rights and is seen as wrong), slavery has simply become a little more subtle and loose, but it's still slavery.

[Beautiful sky]

When you have too much money and you can support a trooper of humans for a very long time, you don't need to "sit on money" in fact, it won't matter to you if you gave some of it away. Except, he can give it to a charity of his choice and I wouldn't be wrong in guessing that that charity is the religion he supports rather than really important causes.

[ragnar]

am i the only person here who isn't into Ron Paul/libertarianism?

Ron Paul's respect for the Constitution is wonderful, the killer for me is his incredible naivete towards the exterminating havoc of the old world.

[Creepy-male]

I was thinking the other day that the entire republican vs democrat thing is rather pointless, as its exactly what is useful strategically for people in power. If the population that is the base of the "pyramid" so to speak, the majority who runs and operates things and composes most of the people that make up a nation. If that population is confused by what they are being told in the media on issues and they are debating each other as republican vs democrat, then that in a way is distracting them from unifying together and focusing their criticism on those in power, which in many ways regardless of their formal label as a republican or democrat share the same ideological base and approach to things. In a way the concept of republicans and democrats keep people divided, confused, and at a media war with each other. Very similar to the idea the Romans had with divided and conquer. Instead of sending their own forces to fight, they would hire barbarians to handle other barbarian tribes. This way they would both weaken each other and not Rome.

So I think this is one way in which political parties can be manipulative. Divide and conquer, they keep the less media-savy individuals, the common people at "war" with each other so that they can't unify and work together to achieve a common goal or reformation. I don't think this is a purposeful manipulation but an unintended consequence that developed as the system became hijacked and skillfully used to this end over time by people who intuitively understand the mechanics of social power/influence.

The other concept of partisanship I dislike is the rhetoric involved. Most media outlets and politicians will represent views in simple pro or con fashion. This rhetoric is simple to understand and synthesize. It conveniently summarizes ones views on something. Pro-life, pro-choice, and so forth. The problem is it lacks an in depth look at complex issues. It creates this illusion that all things are simply being for this or against this. The rhetoric is purposefully targeted towards ones gut instinct and emotional reaction towards and issue. The rhetoric isn't focused on investigation of the issues to better understand how many facets of the issue there are and how they work in reality. Most people already know how they feel at a guteral level about issues, so what is the point of making this the focus? Isn't it to portray politics as a kind of war where two opposing views face off. This kind of "jerry springer" politics I think more people should be offended by, I am surprised that more people aren't offended at how issues are presented to them in such a dumbed down way.

I think the rhetoric helps drive people towards this divide and conquer mentality, to represent all politics as simply a battle between two democratic masses, with issues that are dumbed down to a guteral thumbs up or thumbs down. Most politicians seem like they are simply trying to "work" this environment to win an election through gaining the greatest amount of media approval -- in order to do so many are actually helping perpetuate this system rather than liberate people from it.

The reasons a person may want to be president or a politician vary. They may find themselves eager to heroically change things, thus greatly feeding their self-esteem, however much of their need to gain constant approval in the public through playing this media game only feeds the system more and prevents them from doing anything to actually change things.

I think its going to be a very long time before people wake up from this.

Politics have almost become like a media gladiator debate thing. I think people almost take too much of an interest to some issues, and I think its because people channel their frustrations and anger into these issues as an outlet for latent aggression or dissatisfaction with their life. Most of which is short term in its cathartic value, rather than long term through providing resolution to the actual source of the tension and discontent. I think a large part of what prevents people intellectual access to uncovering the source of this discontent is actually the culture. It reinforces social values which prevent access to this. People are taught to glorify the "jerry springer" drama of politics and partisanship and taught that investigation of the issues is boring or impractical or other such things. They are also constantly under the illusion that if they keep fighting the opposition in a political debate that they will one day gloriously win and there simplified pro-whatever policy will be instilled and fix everything. Their position is raised to a pedestal and they are told to go against the opposition emphasizing that the opposition is the reason why things aren't the way they want them to be in their actual life. What they miss is actually seeing the seeds of a more prosperous future right in front of them, instead they are conscripted into a media battle that serves the interest of the status quo and those that profit from it at the expense of others.

[Aquagraph]

Ron Paul's respect for the Constitution is wonderful, the killer for me is his incredible naivete towards the exterminating havoc of the old world.

This would pose a challenge I'd be interested to see solve itself. In a way or another.

People should either:
1) go with the Constitution as it is
2) realize that it is incompatable with the real world.

[Creepy-male]

I'm shocked that fox news actually acknowledged the existence of ron paul.

[Korpsy Knievel]

"For some time people have been harping on me to sound off on my opinions regarding the upcoming Presidential elections, and to state my endorsement of a paticular candidate. Never one to shy away from cheap publicity, for some reason I did. The reason? Simply put, all the offered choices are so nauseatingly banal that there is no flavor I favor. I hate all of them, and their institutions make me sick. They all suck so bad that I cannot begin to do anything other than reject everything they stand for, and can endorse no party or candidate so much as I heartily cry for their destruction, lust for them to be tasked and scourged with fire and whips, and yearn to see great clouds of insects set upon their genitals, and feast upon their diseased and dripping dick slits and big rotten pussies. Do not vote for them, gather in mobs and attack them in their homes — drag them into the streets and impale them upon a gigantic wheel of over-sized knives, and this goes for Obama too!"

- Oderus Urungus, Lord of Earth and lead singer of GWAR

http://gawker.com/5885449/the-big-ru...l-endorsements

[717495]

I'm shocked that fox news actually acknowledged the existence of ron paul.

What on earth is fox news

[krieger]

more like a dead obvious, stereotype ISFj. even the most stratified prototypes of ISFj are a perfect match. Ne PoLR the size of Tokyo. he's Bardia's identical, conflictor to Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz, hkkmr. nothing he stands for makes sense from an alpha NT perspective. i'm at a loss as to why i even need to debate this.

consider this attempt at "kick the retard out of gamma" busted.

[717495]

consider this attempt at "kick the retard out of gamma" busted.