2012 US Republican Presidential Candidates

[JRiddy]

Haven't put a whole lot of thought into these yet, but I'm wondering what others think. I'd get pictures but I'm busy

• Michelle Bachman - INFp? Beta, at any rate, I believe
• Herman Cain - C-ENTp, haven't ruled out ENFp but his whole shtick seems Alpha to me. ESTp not impossible.
• Newt Gingrich - N-ESTp. His pictures even smell ESTp. I don't know what that means other than that I'm confident in that typing. Strongly reminds me of other Beta ST politicians in the way he openly flaunts his talent for political calculus.
• John Hunstman - ENFj?
• Ron Paul - N-INTp. Made up statistic: 2/3 of all followers of Austrian Economics are INTp
• Rick Perry - C-ESTj. Don't blame me; I voted for Kinky Friedman.
• Mitt Romney - D-ESTj. Definitely conveys that ESTj-ish control vibe to me
• Rick Santorum - ISTp?

Blah go argue

[marooned]

from what I've seen they're all nutters.

[Sam Rockwell]

Gary Johnson- ENTp

[rat1]

hopefully ron paul wins

[Aquagraph]

[*]Ron Paul - N-INTp. Made up statistic: 2/3 of all followers of Austrian Economics are INTp

[Jinxi]

Herman Cain - ENTj
Ron Paul - ISTp
Michelle Bachmann - ESTj
Newt Gingrich - INTp
Rick Perry - ENFj
Mitt Romney - ENFj
Rick Santorum - ISTp
John Huntsman - ENTp

[Galen]

Riddy I didn't know you went for DCNH now

Bachmann: ti-istj
Cain: te-estj?
Romney: si-estj
Perry: si-estj
Gingrich: fe/ti extrovert

[Sam Rockwell]

Does nobody know who Gary Johnson is? Pro gay rights, separation of church & state, fiscal conservative, two-time governor of New Mexico, his only prior experience was building a multi-million dollar construction company, pro immigration, supports states' rights, balanced budget by 2013, "fair tax system", pro marijuana decriminalization and legalization, climbed Mount Everest? He's got to be the best republican out there.

[Gilly]

Dear god
At least a Democrat is bound to win, unless Ron Paul gets the nomination.

[Gilly]

Does nobody know who Gary Johnson is? Pro gay rights, separation of church & state, fiscal conservative, two-time governor of New Mexico, his only prior experience was building a multi-million dollar construction company, pro immigration, supports states' rights, balanced budget by 2013, "fair tax system", pro marijuana decriminalization and legalization, climbed Mount Everest? He's got to be the best republican out there.

Holy shit

What?

[Galen]

Does nobody know who Gary Johnson is? Pro gay rights, separation of church & state, fiscal conservative, two-time governor of New Mexico, his only prior experience was building a multi-million dollar construction company, pro immigration, supports states' rights, balanced budget by 2013, "fair tax system", pro marijuana decriminalization and legalization, climbed Mount Everest? He's got to be the best republican out there.

Nope, never heard of him.

[mu4]

Does nobody know who Gary Johnson is? Pro gay rights, separation of church & state, fiscal conservative, two-time governor of New Mexico, his only prior experience was building a multi-million dollar construction company, pro immigration, supports states' rights, balanced budget by 2013, "fair tax system", pro marijuana decriminalization and legalization, climbed Mount Everest? He's got to be the best republican out there.

unelectable

He is another delta imo. I think LSE.

I think he's a isolationist and means well but his policies ultimately will produce a easily exploitable system which will be abused by someone else due to the removal of some control mechanisms which might not be needed under his administration but will be necessary when another person/successor takes charge.

It's common to see this sort of person in history, take Marcus Aurelius for example, who means well are are exemplary in their personal behavior but create systems which require exemplary behavior to operate and are thus unsustainable.

[glam]

Michelle Bachman - INFp?

please no

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[717495]

No need to apologize on the behalf of others.

[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]

[Aquagraph]

I....agree with maritsa???

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Gilly]

Newt Gingrich is a slimeball.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

[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.

[golden]

WTF is up with all this DCNH stuff?

[Galen]

WTF is up with all this DCNH stuff?

No idea, I didn't think most people on here cared for it.

@Ashton an ESTj 9? Doesn't sound like a very common combo to me.

[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?

[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.

[717495]

Ron Paul's too adorable to be Fe

[Ave]

Ron Paul's too adorable to be Fe

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

Edit: nevermind.