2012 US Republican Presidential Candidates

[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.

[JRiddy]

I haven't typed people in a while, and my typings at the top were pretty off-the-cuff and shitty.

As for the DCNH stuff, I just decided to give it a whirl. Gulenko's stuff tends to be thought-provoking at the very least, as he tends to look for cross-cutting concerns in types. Erotic Attitudes were big on the boards when I first got into Socionics years ago. While I've been away, Cognitive Styles seem to have come into focus for some around here. I have some real problems with DCNH, but I don't think it's totally useless, so I figure trying it out can't be that bad if you can access to sufficiently many grains of salt.

Hi Riddy.

Hi!

• Michelle Bachman - Ti-ISTj. Beta as fuck. Probably 1w2.
• Herman Cain - Seems extremely Te to me. I lean Te-ESTj, but ENTj could be possible. His wife looks INFj.
• Newt Gingrich - Ti-ESTp. I suppose if we were doing DCNH, N-ESTp would make sense, too. 7w8. He's probably the best for beating Obumo.
• John Hunstman - Some INFx? I haven't paid a lot of attention to him. Can't see ENFj, but seems NF for sure.
• Ron Paul - Yeah, INTp to the max. 5w6? Austrian Econ FTW.
• Rick Perry - C-ESTj works. 9w8 probably.
• Mitt Romney - D-ESTj is good. He also seems like a huge 3w2.
• Rick Santorum - Dunno, can't type him for some reason. He seems pretty repulsive as a person, can't stand him and I hate his fixation on family values and shit.
• Gary Johnson - I remember seeing an interview of him and thinking he might be ENTp. Sucks that he isn't getting more coverage because he's a solid Libertarian candidate along with Ron Paul.

I looked at some of these folks closer finally. Pretty much agree.

• Cain - I really read him wrong. I basically didn't pay attention to him because I thought he wasn't a serious candidate, even though I dig his hats. Not really sure on ESTj vs ENTj but I was way off with ENTp. Etype on him? 7 or 8? His wife looks really Fi-INFj. He once said that Jesus Christ was the "perfect conservative." Is there some twisted Te logic in there or is that just bad pandering to social conservatives?
• Huntsman - I lean strongly towards Beta on him. INFp seems reasonable.
• Perry - I could see 9w8...I thought 8w9 for a spell but he doesn't seem to ever project himself like an 8. Also lol @ inarticulate rich good-ol' boy Republican governors of Texas.
• Romney - E3 makes a ton of sense. Everything about him seems so well calculated to seem successful and competent, and it's so transparent. It's why no one really gets excited about him.
• Santorum - I feel pretty confident about Te-ISTp. I think Santorum disgusts a lot of people too, but it of course has nothing to do with his type.
• Johnson - Ti-ENTp. Doesn't get more coverage because Ron Paul gets all the attention the media is willing to give to mild-mannered libertarians.

I actually doubt that any of these candidates could beat Obama, even considering a fairly widespread dissatisfaction with Obama. Maybe Romney or Gingrich could do it, but both have major problems.

Middle America seems to just write off Mitt the Milquetoast Moderate Mormon from Massachusetts as little more than an establishment populist, and no one seems to really trust the guy. He doesn't take any risks, and always comes across as an appeaser. It's hard to get excited about a philosophically void narcissist. Gingrich is a narcissist too, but he doesn't try to hide it very much, and I think that gives him a bit of an edge. His abrasiveness and smart-guy image will probably help him too. But he has had a tendency to self-destruct a lot, so you never know. I don't particularly like either one myself, but of the electable candidates, Gingrich seems the most likely to get spending under control. I don't expect anyone except Johnson or Paul to address real economic problems in a meaningful way though, and since those guys aren't gonna win, we'll just kick the can on down the road again.

[Lotus]

riddY!!

[JRiddy]

aLLie!~

[glam]

Romney: LIE
Perry: ESI?
Paul: SLI
Gingrich: SEE?
Bachmann: LSE

the current Republican party is very Te-Fi oriented imo.

[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