I did not watch the debate, but Clayton took a look and analyzed the transcript. I’m not even really going to read the transcript, because paying attention this far out of being able to vote is just too depressing. If I had to put money on the primary, this will end up a race between Perry and Romney. I’m not sure how much of a dog I have in that fight. Truth is, I’ll get behind anyone who’s name isn’t Barack Obama in the general election, but neither Perry nor Romney get me excited. I’d generally give an edge to Perry, since Romney is a serial panderer who can’t be counted on. All politicians paint a bit with that brush, but some make a high art of it. Romney is that type of politician.
24 thoughts on “Republican Debate”
Comments are closed.
Gary Johnson- The things that would win him the general will cost him a primary (and have already lost him a seat at the table). Sheesh, what’s it take to get a third party around here?
Wolfman
Gary Johnson is indeed the only one of the current pack that has exciting ideas. He told me he’d put the whole ATF & the department of education on the chopping block–shut them down, end of story. Add ending the war on drugs & he’s sealed the deal with me. I think his campaign will last.
That said, maybe it’s not such a bad thing that none of the leading Republican candidates are actually exciting–the Democrats voted for charisma with Obama & look where that’s led. Maybe voting for someone with minimal charisma & keeping expectations low for his first year or two will prove beneficial to the next president.
The lack of exciting candidates isn’t about their charisma or lack thereof, it’s about them being same shit different day.
No argument on that either, Jeff.
“Truth is, I’ll get behind anyone who’s name isn’t Barack Obama in the general election”
A rose by any other name will smell as sweet…and a New World Order big government anti-liberty lying stealing cheating politician by any name will smell as shitty.
“Romney is that type of politician.”
So is Perry. The fact that he personally likes firearms doesn’t mean he is to be trusted.
Johnson and Paul are my top choices, but unfortunately my actual choices will be Perry or Mittens.
Perry is nuts on social issues but is good on guns and regulation
Mittens is horrible on guns and size of government but would be fairly good for business and regulation
Obama is…….good for Mexican drug cartels and that’s about it
“Gary Johnson is indeed the only one of the current pack that has exciting ideas. ”
The issues you then wrote sound like Ron Paul’s. Might want to take a second look before lumping Paul in with the rest of the field.
I watched the Phillies game! I will, but have serious doubts, vote for Romney if I have to. It is like my McCain vote!
But, like you, I will vote for anyone running against Obama. Perry, Bachman, Paul, Gingrich.. ABO!! Anybody But Obama!
“I will vote for anyone running against Obama. ”
A while back the Devil figured out that if he ran two candidates people’s bias would make one seem like the lesser of two evils. Everyone of course knows this but they are so biased that they still insist on voting for what they pretend to be the lesser of two evils, even though deep down in their hearts they know very well they are just voting for evil.
I can predict with perfect accuracy who is going to win the next election: the Devil.
Or in more modern parlance, the State. Whichever human tool assumes that office he/she/it will work for more government power, more government budget, more foreign wars, more domestic wars, less liberty, less life, less property in the hands of the individuals, less rule of law, more rule of man.
If Romney wins the nomination… I’m staying home. I’m not voting for any RINO no matter what their name.
I liked Huntsman’s performance, looking at the race vs. BHO. I believe he’s got an A from NRA. He doesn’t stand a chance in the primaries, so we’ll get what we deserve – another big government social conservative, pace GWB.
“Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” – Jerry Garcia
I’m sick to death of choosing evil.
Yeah… having Obama pick replacements for probably two of the Heller Five won’t hurt a bit! Stay home. Sounds like a winning strategy.
“Yeah… having Obama pick replacements for probably two of the Heller Five won’t hurt a bit!”
No winning candidate is going to nominate a honest & competent liberty loving judge to the Supreme Court.
When the choices are cyanide and strychnine…abstaining is the best choice even if it’s not the one you are given.
We obtained our current chains by voting for them. We will get our future chains by the same means.
You would have said the same thing about Bush, and Bush was good enough to get us the votes we needed to win Heller and McDonald.
If someone would otherwise stay home, at least go pull a third-party lever and give them a little bump in popularity.
“You would have said the same thing about Bush, and Bush was good enough to get us the votes we needed to win Heller and McDonald.”
Correct. I did say the same thing about Bush. Did you vote for Bush? Thanks to Bush tens of thousands of foreigners got killed, thousands of our own troops and citizens also got killed, hundreds of thousands or millions of Americans went to prison, the debt and government power and size and budget and tyranny etc all greatly increased, the education system dumbed down kids even further, etc etc etc etc etc.
You may have won a very small battle – but you lost the war – and if you voted for evil then you also have blood on your hands. Not a little blood, a lot of blood. When you vote for the collective then you are collectively responsible for ALL of the sins and crimes of the collection. Each Borg is responsible for all Borg.
I did not vote for Bush the first time. I reluctantly did the second time. I agreed with the war, so you’re not swaying me with that argument. I wasn’t pleased with the debt.
I find your views quite extreme, Critic. Republican government means you don’t get candidates that agree with you on everything. If a candidate agrees with me 60% of the time, I consider that to be pretty good.
Perry may be a “nut” on social issues but fortunately the President doesn’t have a lot of power to do anything on them by fiat. If we can hold Congress with “true Scotsman” conservatives I’m not worried about a “theocratic takeover”. =/
In any event, it doesn’t speak well of Perry but based on the timing of his statements I think he’s pandering to the social con base, not embracing them. If I have to vote for someone who will pander to one wing of the Rep party, I’d rather it be the soc con wing. They are becoming less demographically relevent every day at the state and local level which is where such battles should be fought.
“I find your views quite extreme, Critic.”
You should see my full philosophy.
“Republican government means you don’t get candidates that agree with you on everything.”
Ayuh. I wrote a proof last year demonstrating that representative government is impossible. Even if you ignore the people who don’t vote and thus aren’t represented if you add up the people who vote for a losing candidate and thus aren’t represented along with those who vote for the winning candidate but who sometimes to often disagree with that elected official on the various issues – you have a non-representative government in any population of any significant size andor with any significant diversity of opinion.
“I agreed with the war, so you’re not swaying me with that argument.”
Those who are willing to trade the lives and liberty of their own countrymen in order to seize the same from foreigners are not those who are swayed by arguments.
Huntsman is the dog that don’t hunt.
With regards to Huntsman: I’ve seen him as Governor of Utah, and see him as a Moderate. I’m not happy to see him running for President–or rather, I’m not happy with the prospect of him becoming President.
Having said that, I like some of the things I’ve been hearing from him. We’ll have to see what happens. If I’m proven wrong, then I’d be happy to see that!
As for staying home from voting: I decided that if a candidate can’t convince enough people to vote for him, then he’s not going to win. It’s not enough to say “I’m not Obama”! If the Republican candidate can’t convince me to vote for him, I’m not sure if I’ll be able to bring myself to do so–and even if I could, I won’t be confident that he’ll win. I held my nose to vote for McCain, and he still lost.
Well, maybe I’m exaggerating a bit–“I’m not Obama” might be enough to make it into first term, if Obama doesn’t get primaried–but such a President will have to prove himself in his first term!
As for the claim that representative government is impossible: It’s not. We would have to move to a system where individuals choose the person to represent them, at least somewhat independent of geography; we should be able to choose our representatives in “real time”, ie, to be able to switch representatives at a moment’s notice; and each representative would have a certain amount of voting power based on the percentage of the State’s population they actually represent.
I’ve been meaning to blog about such a system for some time, but I haven’t gotten around to it. The only problem with it is that it will represent the people even better than it does now–and if the People want to destroy their freedom, it will happen that much more quickly as a result!
But I do agree with your analysis of “static discrete” representation, which is what we have right now.
“we should be able to choose our representatives in “real timeâ€, ie, to be able to switch representatives at a moment’s notice;”
Such a system would possibly be rather chaotic. It also doesn’t address the problem of non-representation in the past.
I don’t need to be represented. Nor do I need “representatives” to rule over me, to pass so called laws to deny me my rights, to enact taxes to take my money and spend it on their own selves and their purposes and those of their cronies, to damn myself and my progeny to a life of servitude and serfdom. Does anyone really need these things?
“Such a system would possibly be rather chaotic.”
In medieval Iceland, it was surprisingly stable. Having said that, what do you have against chaos? I happen to like being able to choose where I get my food, or what food I buy, and changing my mind at a moment’s notice. Sure, it’s chaotic, but it’s also been a major source of prosperity.
While I don’t feel our system is “representative”, it *is* somewhat representative of the people who are convinced to vote. My only fear in refining the representation is that it may very well represent us *too* well: too many of us want Government to coddle us as it is.
For the record, L. Niel Smith also described such a representative system in his book “The Probability Broach”; yes, it was rather chaotic; and yes, he wanted to get rid of even that little bit of government. :-)