Candidates 2012

[Arne]

Who would be your favorite candidate for president in 2012?

Mine in an ideal world:

Former Gov. of New-Mexico Gary Johnson:

Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2EhAVQS2V8
Part II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcu8jWD2Qs0

A realistic candidate that I might be able to support depending on his stances on foreign policy.

South Carolina Gov. Marc Sanford:

Him saying he doesn't want the bailout money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GxY2...eature=related
Him describing the type of economy we have today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UECBD0EV3E
Him talking about the Republican brand going forward: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuwp_Dmapo

[MaVs 41 BaLler]

Dammit we're already talking about this....

[Arne]

Originally Posted by MaVs 41 BaLler

Dammit we're already talking about this....

Well, the last election could've gone either way in my opinion and I'd still start this thread, since both candidates were offering politics as usual. Now that my assumption has been proven correct, I decided to start this thread.

[Nowitzki4President]

Dirk Nowitzki First. President Obama Next.

[chumdawg]

I'd consider Sarah Palin an early frontrunner for the Republican bid.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'd consider Sarah Palin an early frontrunner for the Republican bid.

Fours years of seeing things from another perspective will make Republicans think about what they really are and what they really want to be, I think. Therefore I am hopefull its not going to be Sarah Palin.

Besides, the way Obama will have further destroyed the American economy, I think the coutry will yearn for reasonable talk about economics like Mark Sanford's.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Arne

Fours years of seeing things from another perspective will make Republicans think about what they really are and what they really want to be, I think. Therefore I am hopefull its not going to be Sarah Palin.

Besides, the way Obama will have further destroyed the American economy, I think the coutry will yearn for reasonable talk about economics like Mark Sanford's.

If you think Mark Sanford has a chance in '12, you are only kidding yourself. And if you are relying on Obama destroying the economy, you are kidding yourself too. Things will probably be looking fairly sweet in '12. The Reps will likely be the underdog.

[Arne]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

If you think Mark Sanford has a chance in '12, you are only kidding yourself. And if you are relying on Obama destroying the economy, you are kidding yourself too. Things will probably be looking fairly sweet in '12. The Reps will likely be the underdog.

I hope I can come back on this one with you. If the economy is still in trouble in 2012, you will agree that Obama's policies were fundamentally flawed?

If the economy recovers by 2012 and Obama has stayed on his current policy path I will agree with Keyensianism.

Obama's policies just like Bush's policies are destroying price signals of the free market. No economy is going to recover under these circumstances.

[Underdog]

Hegemon Obama, President of Earth 2012 (Tony Blair as VP...)

Believe it!

[GermanDunk]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

I'd consider Sarah Palin an early frontrunner for the Republican bid.

They won´t make a this huge mistake again. I put all my bookie at stake ( if i´d earn some )

[alexamenos]

i bet the computers and robots will be running things by 2012.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

i bet the computers and robots will be running things by 2012.

[DirkFTW]

UD, I thought you would be my VP for 2012. Computers can't enjoy Wagyu steaks!

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Arne

Obama's policies just like Bush's policies are destroying price signals of the free market. No economy is going to recover under these circumstances.

Agreed. Bush may have been driving this bus off a cliff, now Obama is just flooring it.

The only difference is now we have a blue D next to the President's name instead of a red R, so now bailouts are the solution instead of the problem.

[Underdog]

Originally Posted by DirkFTW

UD, I thought you would be my VP for 2012. Computers can't enjoy Wagyu steaks!

I'm game, but they won't let me run because I won't be 36-years-old yet...


Armageddon will have to wait until 2016...

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Agreed. Bush may have been driving this bus off a cliff, now Obama is just flooring it.

The only difference is now we have a blue D next to the President's name instead of a red R, so now bailouts are the solution instead of the problem.

And all the cool movie stars got to high five each other last night at the Oscars because they heart their pop culture president.

Don't forget about that difference.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Underdog

I'm game, but they won't let me run because I won't be 36-years-old yet...


Armageddon will have to wait until 2016...

Neither will I, but our platform will be so compelling that the laws will change by popular demand.

Getcha A1 Sauce ready!

[92bDad]

We need to focus on 2010 first!!!

__________________________________________________ _______________________

Just a reminder since we've just started with a new President and new Congress. Since the leadership in Congress is the same as it's been for sometime it'll be interesting to see their strategy of blame.

545 vs 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.


545 PEOPLE

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, theFederal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash.
The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.

[Underdog]

[alexamenos]

You could vote out 545 congressman and I doubt it'd make a whit of difference....

...the robots and computers are still going to take over.

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by alexamenos

...the robots and computers are still going to take over.

this is how it starts.

[Robillion]

Ive heard much talk of Mitt Romney going for the bid again.

[Mavdog]

2012??? I'm still trying to get thru 2009....

while it may be interesting to pick a politico, especially a dark horse like sanford, and pump them up as a viable candidate, there is way too much time, way too many issues that will emerge, to speculate about 2012 imo.

let's see, what is going to happen with the economy? afganistan? iran? north korea? the auto industry? health care? taxes? mexico's narco war? the candidate's health? stupid gaffs/personal slips by the politicos?

way too many things to happen to predict, and none of us know what the situation will be in 12 months much less 45 months from now.

who would have expected in 2004 obama would be the president in 2008? (besides michele obama and axelrod..)

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

lmao.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

2012??? I'm still trying to get thru 2009....

while it may be interesting to pick a politico, especially a dark horse like sanford, and pump them up as a viable candidate, there is way too much time, way too many issues that will emerge, to speculate about 2012 imo.

let's see, what is going to happen with the economy? afganistan? iran? north korea? the auto industry? health care? taxes? mexico's narco war? the candidate's health? stupid gaffs/personal slips by the politicos?

way too many things to happen to predict, and none of us know what the situation will be in 12 months much less 45 months from now.

who would have expected in 2004 obama would be the president in 2008? (besides michele obama and axelrod..)

For the most part, I actually agree with Mavdog!!!

Rather than focusing on who, perhaps discussing the issues and how the issues should be governed will better help define who the candidates should be in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

We see the failure that is, pushing Obama sooo early, only to win the Presidency with no experience...perhaps we can move forward and focus on the issues themselves and then line up EXPERIENCED candidates with track records that show them VOTING on existing issues, so that we know how they will govern after the campaing rhetoric has passed.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

For the most part, I actually agree with Mavdog!!!

Rather than focusing on who, perhaps discussing the issues and how the issues should be governed will better help define who the candidates should be in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

We see the failure that is, pushing Obama sooo early, only to win the Presidency with no experience...perhaps we can move forward and focus on the issues themselves and then line up EXPERIENCED candidates with track records that show them VOTING on existing issues, so that we know how they will govern after the campaing rhetoric has passed.

No person gets scrutinized more for VOTING on existing issues than sitting senators. That's why they so rarely win. A governor doesn't ever really have to deal with that, because he's able to focus on a few issues and is never forced to show his hand on other things.

And of course, lol at "failure" 2 1/2 months in.

[92bDad]

Originally Posted by Kirobaito

No person gets scrutinized more for VOTING on existing issues than sitting senators. That's why they so rarely win. A governor doesn't ever really have to deal with that, because he's able to focus on a few issues and is never forced to show his hand on other things.

And of course, lol at "failure" 2 1/2 months in.

With exception to Obama who rarely voted...what record does he have...NOT PRESENT...that's a great record.

How do we get the truth behind the candidates without some twisted Media agenda to cloud the reality...

Perhaps someone can post a link that shows how current government officials are voting on various bills that come across their desk?

In 2010 and beyond, I hope we can all cast our votes based on track record and not rhetorc/promises. I don't trust polticial promise, it usually fails. But show me a track record and it provides the voters with a referece as to what a candidate will do when they are elected to office.

There's no guarantee...but at least we can have a reference that is based in reality as opposed to canned quotes.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

For the most part, I actually agree with Mavdog!!!

Rather than focusing on who, perhaps discussing the issues and how the issues should be governed will better help define who the candidates should be in 2010, 2012 and beyond.

We see the failure that is, pushing Obama sooo early, only to win the Presidency with no experience...perhaps we can move forward and focus on the issues themselves and then line up EXPERIENCED candidates with track records that show them VOTING on existing issues, so that we know how they will govern after the campaing rhetoric has passed.

uh, no, I am not saying that there was or is a "failure", not in any way.

in fact there clearly is success, an acheivement, as obama proved to be the winner. that's the opposite of failure.

and we are getting the very same ideas that were promised by the obama platform. those who don't "know how [he] will govern" weren't listening or reading the proposals.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by 92bDad

How do we get the truth behind the candidates without some twisted Media agenda to cloud the reality...

some of us actually read the platforms and the speeches the candidate's give. maybe you should do that too.

Perhaps someone can post a link that shows how current government officials are voting on various bills that come across their desk?

easy project votesmart link

[ribosoma]

Being that the "common man" is not permitted to vote on who is part of the Fabian Society, The Club of Rome, or the Council on Foreign Relations, a vote is merely a pathetic attempt at some empty tradition of ritualized servitude. Those who vote will continue to externalize their shadows into materialization resulting in chaos, mass culling, and leaders who are possessed by archetypal forces. For this reason, I choose the only real candidate who fits the bill of confronting the masses with their own delusion...

High-five UD...



He always wins, regardless of who you vote for...

[alexamenos]

Originally Posted by ribosoma

Being that the "common man" is not permitted to vote on who is part of the Fabian Society, The Club of Rome, or the Council on Foreign Relations, a vote is merely a pathetic attempt at some empty tradition of ritualized servitude. Those who vote will continue to externalize their shadows into materialization resulting in chaos, mass culling, and leaders who are possessed by archetypal forces. For this reason, I choose the only real candidate who fits the bill of confronting the masses with their own delusion...

High-five UD...



He always wins, regardless of who you vote for...

yeah... what he said^^^