Meet The Candidates: 2012 GOP Thread

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

As a politician now would be a great time to run for office. Obama is probably done and I'm not but so impressed with everyone else running.

You guys keep saying Obama is done. It's just a bunch of bullshit. Are his poll numbers good, no. But for someone that's "weak", why are all the big hitters too chicken to take him on?

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You guys keep saying Obama is done. It's just a bunch of bullshit. Are his poll numbers good, no. But for someone that's "weak", why are all the big hitters too chicken to take him on?

Which 'Big Hitters' are you talking about?

All an opponenet has to do is hide BHO's teleprompter and the debate would be over.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which 'Big Hitters' are you talking about?

All an opponenet has to do is hide BHO's teleprompter and the debate would be over.

Gov. Mitch Daniels
Gov. Chris Christie
Rep. Paul Ryan
Gov. Haley Barbour
Sen. John Thune
Gov. Mike Huckabee
Gov. Sarah Palin

That's a pretty good list of candidates that don't think they can beat Barack Obama. Within GOP circles, I would consider them hitters.


Jon Huntsman still in single digits in every poll, he'll be out of the race in a couple of months if not before. #fail
Rick Perry is fading faster than a pair of Levi jeans.

Your nominee will be flip-flopping Mitt Romney.

[dmek25]

Reagan--No Loopholes For Millionaires - YouTube

really didnt know where to put this, but found it very interesting

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Reagan--No Loopholes For Millionaires - YouTube

really didnt know where to put this, but found it very interesting

Yeah ive heard it before, but thats old republican. There are no more Regans in Washington anymore or running on the GOP tickets. Sure is hell none in Tea Party movement. Paying fair share used to be conservative ideal. Now their in line with Big business, Big Corporations. U can one again see that aligning with Wall Street and big money than any protest against an institution that lead us head first into near economic collaspe. Their against Tarp and bailouts, but with Wall Street now? Funny

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by dmek25

Reagan--No Loopholes For Millionaires - YouTube

really didnt know where to put this, but found it very interesting

Warren Buffet pays the capital gains tax, while his secretary pays federal income taxes. They are two completely different things.

Now, if you are saying that the capital gains tax rate should be the same rate as the top level income tax rate, fine. But if you think your 401k didn't take enough of a hit over the last few years, don't worry. Jacking the capital gains rate up will clean out whatever you have left.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather not have Congress find a way to make it less profitable to invest.

[budw38]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Warren Buffet pays the capital gains tax, while his secretary pays federal income taxes. They are two completely different things.

Now, if you are saying that the capital gains tax rate should be the same rate as the top level income tax rate, fine. But if you think your 401k didn't take enough of a hit over the last few years, don't worry. Jacking the capital gains rate up will clean out whatever you have left.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather not have Congress find a way to make it less profitable to invest.

Exactly .... well written JB&7 .

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Warren Buffet pays the capital gains tax, while his secretary pays federal income taxes. They are two completely different things.

Now, if you are saying that the capital gains tax rate should be the same rate as the top level income tax rate, fine. But if you think your 401k didn't take enough of a hit over the last few years, don't worry. Jacking the capital gains rate up will clean out whatever you have left.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather not have Congress find a way to make it less profitable to invest.

Everyone missed the story. The cheap ass makes buckets of money. Sorry dumpsters of money and he pays his personal secretary only $60000 per year. What a tight a$$ and no wonder he feels guilty.

[dmek25]

and this is so ironic....

[DynamiteRave]

Herman Cain's quite the flavor of the week (read as: month).

What's up with that?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Herman Cain's quite the flavor of the week (read as: month).

What's up with that?

Cain's rise has been quite the surprise.

Here's a poll released just today: NBC/WSJ numbers: Cain 27, Romney 23, Perry 16. Last month, it was Perry 38, Romney 23 and Cain 5. Herman Cain has jumped 22 points in six weeks!

I think there are two things going on: The Tea Party's disapproval of Mitt Romney, as a candidate, and Rick Perry's horrible debate performances has brought Herman Cain into favor with conservatives. Once his economic plan is vetted more, you'll probably see his numbers come back down to earth. None of these candidates can stand toe to toe with Obama on national security or foreign policy experience.

The short of it is, Herman Cain is on probation for another month or two until Republican voters come to their senses and realize that Mitt Romney has the best shot at beating Barack Obama.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

None of these candidates can stand toe to toe with Obama on national security or foreign policy experience.

None have the foreign policy experience, but they've got the same amount Obama had in 2008. It will be a tough sell to the American people that Obama will be stronger on National Security or foreign policy than a Republican candidate.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

None have the foreign policy experience, but they've got the same amount Obama had in 2008. It will be a tough sell to the American people that Obama will be stronger on National Security or foreign policy than a Republican candidate.

On the National Security front, I find it comical how all of W's war powers stuff got blasted by this administration on it's way into office, and now they're pulling out all the same stops as the previous administration.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

None have the foreign policy experience, but they've got the same amount Obama had in 2008. It will be a tough sell to the American people that Obama will be stronger on National Security or foreign policy than a Republican candidate.

As a senator, Obama was on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations and Homeland Security. He and Senator Lugar travelled to the former Soviet states to inspect the destruction of WMDs and they did craft a piece of legislation to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists. That was before he become president.

In terms of what he's accomplished since becoming president, the list is long and as of right now most Americans, I think 61%, approve of his handling national security. Very far from a tough sell.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

As a senator, Obama was on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations and Homeland Security. He and Senator Lugar travelled to the former Soviet states to inspect the destruction of WMDs and they did craft a piece of legislation to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists. That was before he become president.

And Sarah Palin could see "Russia" from her house and that counted as foreign policy experience too.

This was simply an expansion of the Nunn-Lugar Act of 1991 and has been an ongoing initiative. (Are there any Ds left like Nunn, BTW?)

In terms of what he's accomplished since becoming president, the list is long and as of right now most Americans, I think 61%, approve of his handling national security. Very far from a tough sell.

I'm from Missouri on that one, you'll have to show me. With his approval ratings in the mid-40s, I find it pretty hard to believe he's got a 61% approval on National Security. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I've got to see the poll.

That being said, in the general election (folks voting normally have 30 sec soundbite knowledge of the issues, at best) it is extremely difficult for a D to win the "strong on defense" issue.