2012 US Republican Presidential Candidates

[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?

[Sam Rockwell]

Holy shit

What?

Yeah, he'll be on the ballot during the primaries. Only problem is he's getting zero airtime.

[Krig the Viking]

• Newt Gingrich - Obvious LII. Either Creative or Dominant. Strong on big-picture issues, principles, ideas, etc., but tends to avoid detailed discussion of tactics and implementation. Displays an Alpha-esque "Can't we all just be friends instead of fighting all the time?" attitude to the other Republican candidates.
• Mitt Romney - Obvious LIE. Focus is on long-term practical issues, economy, tends not to emphasize Alpha NT logical principles and theories.
• Herman Cain - D-LSE. Very practical, economic focus like Romney, strong on implementation and details in his specialized field, but weak on strategy and big-picture issues outside of his specialized field.
• Ron Paul - IEI or ILI or ILE or something? Heavily intuitive, but seems to exist more in his own head than in the real world. Focused almost entirely on principle, to the near-complete exclusion of discussing practical implementation.
• Rick Perry - Some ST. SLE maybe? Or LSE? Comes across like a high school jock. Same problems as Cain in talking about big-picture issues and strategy, but much worse at hiding it.
• John Hunstman - Something ethical. IEE or EIE? Frequent appeals to emotion rather than principle or practicality.
• Michelle Bachman - Not sure.
• Rick Santorum - Not sure.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Hi Riddy.

[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.

[rat1]

Ron Paul's very charismatic when he gets media attention. I think he will beat obama if he can get the nomination.

[Sam Rockwell]

I disagree.
He left New Mexico in a surplus by loosening government control on small businesses, giving them the breathing room they needed to truly thrive.
I see why you'd say there are those who'd seek to exploit this sort of flexibility, but it's an antithesis to the way that the U.S. government has been
operating in recent times. I'd just like to see other methods being implemented into the madness.
Aside from that, Gary Johnson is the least "Republican" of the Republican party, and some would say he shouldn't even be identified as such. Then again, he'd
fit in alongside traditional Republicans like Goldwater, rather than the nuts spouting insanity over on CNN & FOX debates.

[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).

[munenori2]

I probably like Jon Huntsman the most out of these guys, never heard of Gary Johnson before, Rick Santorum I'm not a fan of what little I know about him. Michelle Bachmann, as batshit insane as she is I feel kind of sorry for her, Newt seems pretty well informed, but almost too astute of a politician to me, and then the trifecta of Romney, Cain, and Perry drive me up the fucking wall. Oh, Ron Paul is likable, but I don't know his specific policy stances to know whether I'd vote for the old guy. I'm pretty much alright with Ashton's typings, minus all the D's and the C's which I know nothing about.

[rat1]

sam why do you care about whether he fits as republican or democrat when you should be more concerned about how effective his policies will be

[Sam Rockwell]

sam why do you care about whether he fits as republican or democrat when you should be more concerned about how effective his policies will be

I don't care about which party he fits in. I do care about the effects of his policies.