2012 Presidential Campaign

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by panerd

I definitely agree with you. Sadly I think the answer for why he will be popular (and possibly win the nomination) isn't hard to figure out...

Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

That is not shocking at all. The Perry Pray & Preach Presidential Bid Tour is going to sell a lot of bumper stickers.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by panerd

I definitely agree with you. Sadly I think the answer for why he will be popular (and possibly win the nomination) isn't hard to figure out...

Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

I'm actually surprised that 39% of Americans think that creation is some sort of lesson?

[ISiddiqui]

Of course the question is WHICH Bible stories . But that's another thread.

(For the record of the Bible stories listed, I don't treat any of them 100% perfect literally as I think the Bible was written by flawed humans detailing the revelation of God - however, I do believe that Moses parted the Red Sea and and Noah participated in a local flood. As for Adam & Eve, I think that & the creation story is mostly allegorical, but they may refer to the leaders of early humanity whom God singled out)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Just for the heck of it (yeah, it's an isolated poll amongst many, but it's the one I happened to a few minutes ago, so ...)

Margin of error, incidentally, is +/- 3% for those keeping score at home.

GOP Primary: Perry 29%, Romney 18%, Bachmann 13% - Rasmussen Reports™

Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%.

Texas Congressman Ron Paul, who was a close second to Bachmann on Saturday, has the support of nine percent (9%) of Likely Primary Voters, followed by Georgia businessman Herman Cain at six percent (6%) and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich with five percent (5%). Rick Santorum, former U.S. senator from Pennsylvania, and ex-Utah Governor Jon Huntsman each get one percent (1%) support, while Michigan Congressman Thaddeus McCotter comes in statistically at zero.

Sixteen percent (16%) of primary voters remain undecided. ...

Perry captures 39% of the vote among GOP primary voters who say they are members of the Tea Party, with Bachmann a distant second with 21% support from this group. Perry barely leads Romney among non-Tea Party members 27% to 24%, but this marks a interesting change from the previous survey when Romney held a double-digit lead over Perry among these voters.

Sixty-nine percent (69%) of primary voters hold a favorable opinion of Perry, with 38% Very Favorable. Bachmann is viewed favorably by 71%, with 32% who share a Very Favorable regard for her.

Romney has slightly higher overall favorable rating – 77% - than Perry and Bachmann, but there’s less enthusiasm in his support. Only 21% hold a Very Favorable opinion of him.

Roughly one-in-five hold an unfavorable view of the three front-runners.

Paul, who emerged as a Cinderella of sorts from the Saturday straw poll, is viewed favorably by 43% and unfavorably by 45%. Gingrich is in a similar position with favorables of 48% and unfavorables of 43%.

For Cain, Santorum, Huntsman and McCotter, name recognition is still a problem, with at least one-in-four primary voters still not aware of them enough to venture any kind of opinion.

[JPhillips]

That says a lot about the feelings of those in the race. I doubt many of the 29% for Perry have any idea of what he stands for.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I doubt many of the 29% for Perry have any idea of what he stands for.

Lemme see here ... I'd figure that nearly all of that 29% know his abortion position. Most likely know his gun rights position ... I'd suspect that most of them largely correctly assume his general positions on issues such as school choice, capital punishment, definition of marriage, crime & punishment et al, and most of his immigration related stuff (I suspect most would be surprised at him signing off on the importation of farm workers from Mexico though).

http://www.ontheissues.org/rick_perry.htm

[Ksyrup]

"Is that a PLEDGE PIN?! On your UNIFORM?????!"

[flounder]

For me, these are the more embarrassing pictures.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, Perry created jobs in Texas, but they were mainly government ones.

[MrBug708]

Chris Christie is thinking of running

[rowech]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Chris Christie is thinking of running

He's finally realized he's not healthy?

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Michelle Bachmann is learned

"What people recognize is that there's a fear that the United States is in an unstoppable decline. They see the rise of China, the rise of India, the rise of the Soviet Union and our loss militarily going forward," Bachmann said on Jay Sekulow's radio show.

[JPhillips]

What about the Ottomans? Why isn't anyone talking about the rise of the Ottoman Empire?

[BillJasper]

I just honestly don't know what to say. Does her husband not allow her to read newspapers or watch TV, cause they're "teh evil"?

Are we ever going to be able to bring down the Berlin wall? We must free Eastern Europe!

[JediKooter]

Welp, you can throw Ron Paul into the pile of idiots that think that evolution is 'just a theory'. They seem to have a bumper crop of them this year in Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jyvk...layer_embedded

[JediKooter]

Damn the Constitution and its checks and balances!!!

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[Buccaneer]

In starting to think about this, I determined that my desires are very simple: No single party running legislative and executive, unlike the nightmare of 2001-2007 and the devastation of 2009-2011.

[GrantDawg]

Rick Perry taking a big lead in the field according to Gallop. He is going to be a tough competitor in the primaries, but it seems like he will get shelled in the general.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Damn the Constitution and its checks and balances!!!

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

I can get behind him on items #1, #3, #4, and #5.

Most controversial one for me is #1. I think that it works the best though, you won't have any more hitting the lottery Presidents where they get 3-4 nominations due to death, retirement, etc.

[lighthousekeeper]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Welp, you can throw Ron Paul into the pile of idiots that think that evolution is 'just a theory'. They seem to have a bumper crop of them this year in Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jyvk...layer_embedded

crap. i was hoping he wasn't a nut job.

[Coffee Warlord]

The difference being, he is an ardent opponent of the federal government legislating things like abortion/gay marriage, etc.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Welp, you can throw Ron Paul into the pile of idiots that think that evolution is 'just a theory'. They seem to have a bumper crop of them this year in Texas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Jyvk...layer_embedded

Disappointing. His religious views are also pretty disappointing to me (meaning that he has strong beliefs in fairy tales) but nothing he has ever done in his political career has shown he lets his personal views get in the way of getting the government out of your life. (ie He will never push for the feds to get involved with school prayer or abortion) Still support him a mile over the other candidates but I will admit he did drop a little on the respect me for me today.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

Disappointing. His religious views are also pretty disappointing to me (meaning that he has strong beliefs in fairy tales) but nothing he has ever done in his political career has shown he lets his personal views get in the way of getting the government out of your life. (ie He will never push for the feds to get involved with school prayer or abortion) Still support him a mile over the other candidates but I will admit he did drop a little on the respect me for me today.

Sanctity of Life Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[panerd]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Sanctity of Life Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK?

The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

crap. i was hoping he wasn't a nut job.

The goldbug stuff sealed his nut status years ago.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

OK?

The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.

But this:

The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood (specifically, natural personhood) as beginning at conception,[1] "without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency."

would seem to make any abortion a federal crime(murder).

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But this:



would seem to make any abortion a federal crime(murder).

Consistency, thy name is not Ron Paul.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I can get behind him on items #1, #3, #4, and #5.

Most controversial one for me is #1. I think that it works the best though, you won't have any more hitting the lottery Presidents where they get 3-4 nominations due to death, retirement, etc.

I honestly don't think there is any perfect solution out there that is going to make 100% of everybody happy, but, these just aren't even close to the changes the country needs. Especially abolishing the 16th amendment. As much as I hate paying taxes, the obligations and population of this country are too big to not have some form of federal taxation to keep this country running. He's basically trying to pull the wool over our eyes by blaming the constitution for the country's problems, instead of holding himself and all the other elected officials out there, accountable for their actions. Just my opinion though.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by panerd

OK?

The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state. Such legislative declarations are nonbinding statements of policy and are used by federal courts in the context of determining the intent of the legislature in legal challenges.

So you didn't read the whole thing? Especially the part about a federal definition for when life begins?

Also, let's not forget that Ron Paul endorsed theocratic Chuck Baldwin for President in 2008:

Chuck Baldwin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2010, Baldwin retired from his position as pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church and announced his intention to move to Montana, because he believed God had told him that the Mountain states were the "tip of the spear in the freedom fight."

[Senator]

No more guys I know from my political days are allowed to run for President anymore, please. I would hate to have to leave the country.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by panerd

I definitely agree with you. Sadly I think the answer for why he will be popular (and possibly win the nomination) isn't hard to figure out...

Most Americans take Bible stories literally - Washington Times

I think a more fascinating question would be how many people who take the Bible literally have read it. The survey says protestants are more likely to take it literally. That fascinates me because the survey specifically asks about Genesis and the Old Testament, and my impression is that protestants favor the New Testament.

If you believe Abraham was 175 years old and its OK to take your wife's handmaiden as a second wife and knock her up for a child, then expel them when your wife finally has a child, that's fine. I'm not judging. Guess it explains a few things, like the popularity of Newt Gingrich.

[kcchief19]

The latest Rasmussen polls all show Obama losing to a generic Republican but leading in all the head-to-head polls. Not a big surprise there. Only surprise to me is that Perry does best against Obama followed by Bachmann and then Romney.

PPP has a couple of state polls out that show Obama with double-digit leads over Perry and Romney in Iowa and Wisconsin.

I have yet to see any evidence Perry can run toward the middle for the general election. My impression is that he's going to continue running to the right, which can get him the nomination. But I don't see how that gets him the general, unless Obama self-implodes.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The latest Rasmussen polls all show Obama losing to a generic Republican but leading in all the head-to-head polls. Not a big surprise there. Only surprise to me is that Perry does best against Obama followed by Bachmann and then Romney.

PPP has a couple of state polls out that show Obama with double-digit leads over Perry and Romney in Iowa and Wisconsin.

I have yet to see any evidence Perry can run toward the middle for the general election. My impression is that he's going to continue running to the right, which can get him the nomination. But I don't see how that gets him the general, unless Obama self-implodes.

The economy is Obama's lodestone. It gives anyone a chance against him, really. How much of chance is going to depend on who and what things look like at the time of the general.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I honestly don't think there is any perfect solution out there that is going to make 100% of everybody happy, but, these just aren't even close to the changes the country needs. Especially abolishing the 16th amendment. As much as I hate paying taxes, the obligations and population of this country are too big to not have some form of federal taxation to keep this country running. He's basically trying to pull the wool over our eyes by blaming the constitution for the country's problems, instead of holding himself and all the other elected officials out there, accountable for their actions. Just my opinion though.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think a sales tax is a much better option than an income tax. It hits everyone and in proportion to the amount they spend. That way you also hit the money that has been passed on and not earned.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The latest Rasmussen polls all show Obama losing to a generic Republican but leading in all the head-to-head polls.

As I said elsewhere recently, the problem with that is finding a "generic Republican".

I think what happens on that particular polling question is that the response is based on what the respondent considers as the "generic R", which often mirrors their own positions. Then you get to specific candidates & they fail to live up to that same standard.

Take me as an example, I'd give you a positive response to the generic & a little over half the current field, I'd drop into the "other/neither" category on several of the others. Same thing almost certainly happens with a fiscal conservative/social liberal (R) except, of course, in reverse.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Take me as an example, I'd give you a positive response to the generic & a little over half the current field, I'd drop into the "other/neither" category on several of the others. Same thing almost certainly happens with a fiscal conservative/social liberal (R) except, of course, in reverse.

I have to admit, I haven't been following this stuff at all right now, but are there ANY legit current Republican candidates who fit the fiscal conservative/social liberal (or as I prefer to call it, social ambivalent) tag?

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think a sales tax is a much better option than an income tax. It hits everyone and in proportion to the amount they spend. That way you also hit the money that has been passed on and not earned.

So a federal sales tax? I guess that wouldn't be too bad as long as it still generates enough revenue, but, doesn't scare people away from making as many purchases as they normally would. Would have to find that happy medium.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I have to admit, I haven't been following this stuff at all right now, but are there ANY legit current Republican candidates who fit the fiscal conservative/social liberal (or as I prefer to call it, social ambivalent) tag?

Huntsman is probably your closest bet there, along with Paul.

[JediKooter]

Welp, Perry continues his crusade against the Constitution and gay people:

Perry signs pledge on anti-gay marriage amendment - Yahoo! News

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think a sales tax is a much better option than an income tax. It hits everyone and in proportion to the amount they spend. That way you also hit the money that has been passed on and not earned.

A revenue neutral sales tax would need to be higher than twenty cents on the dollar. That would be a tremendous initial shock to the economy and is well above the threshold where widespread black markets would appear. A sales tax is also the most regressive form of taxation.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think a sales tax is a much better option than an income tax. It hits everyone and in proportion to the amount they spend. That way you also hit the money that has been passed on and not earned.

That would be extremely regressive. Say a guy who makes $25,000 a year is probably spending everything he makes. Someone who makes $500,000 or more is saving or investing a good chunk of that. You are now taxing people at the bottom on everything they make and people at the top on a smaller portion of their income.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As I said elsewhere recently, the problem with that is finding a "generic Republican".

I think what happens on that particular polling question is that the response is based on what the respondent considers as the "generic R", which often mirrors their own positions. Then you get to specific candidates & they fail to live up to that same standard.

Take me as an example, I'd give you a positive response to the generic & a little over half the current field, I'd drop into the "other/neither" category on several of the others. Same thing almost certainly happens with a fiscal conservative/social liberal (R) except, of course, in reverse.

I think it's more simple. In a generic race it's just an approval/disapproval of Obama. Once you add real opponents it becomes a judgement on which of the two you'd prefer. People aren't happy with Obama, but think most of the GOP candidates are nuts.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

People aren't happy with Obama, but think most of the GOP candidates are nuts.

Quote of the month right there.

[Young Drachma]

[JPhillips]

More evidence that Paul is a nut.

After a lunch speech today, Ron Paul slammed the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, and said that no national response to Hurricane Irene is necessary.

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said. “I live on the gulf coast, we deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.

“There’s no magic about FEMA. They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank. We should be coordinated but coordinated voluntarily with the states,” Paul told NBC News. “A state can decide. We don’t need somebody in Washington.”

If you can find where the wind has blown your bootstraps, pick yourself up by them.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

More evidence that Paul is a nut.



If you can find where the wind has blown your bootstraps, pick yourself up by them.

Yeah what a nut! He wonders where all this money comes from when both parites don't raise taxes, don't cut spending, and keep raising the national debt. I guess we can get the money from the trillions that the historic health care law is saving us and the mindboggling <1% cuts from the debt ceiling negotiations. What's funny is that the sites where people like JPhillips get their talking points from no longer ingore him... on to step two!!!

EDIT: Of course JPhillips would know more about government waste from agencies like FEMA than a 11-time senator based in the gulf coast. Why do these people keep reelecting this nut instead of taking FEMA money to save themselves from hurricanes?

You're doing a heck of a job Brownie!

[JPhillips]

He's not saying FEMA needs to be reformed, he's saying that a state shouldn't be helped by the federal government in the event of a disaster. Even if we had pots of gold to throw around he still thinks that a state devastated by a natural disaster should be on their own.

That's nuts.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

He's not saying FEMA needs to be reformed, he's saying that a state shouldn't be helped by the federal government in the event of a disaster. Even if we had pots of gold to throw around he still thinks that a state devastated by a natural disaster should be on their own.

That's nuts.

The way I interpret "They’re a great contribution to deficit financing and quite frankly they don’t have a penny in the bank" is that this country is broke and nobody ever seems to find a program (or war) that is worth cutting.

[JPhillips]

“We should be like 1900; we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960,” Paul said.

He doesn't believe there should be a federal response in the event of a natural disaster. After Katrina LA, MS and AL should have struggled on their own. If that meant extra suffering for millions, so be it. His ideology is getting in the way of common sense.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I can get behind him on items #1, #3, #4, and #5.

Most controversial one for me is #1. I think that it works the best though, you won't have any more hitting the lottery Presidents where they get 3-4 nominations due to death, retirement, etc.

#1 is the worst because it basically throws away checks and balances. The courts then work as puppets for whoever is in office. The opposite of what they were intended to be.

Anyways, it's just at boilerplate red meat thrown to those on the right. The same culture war crap we've seen for decades. None of it will ever be put in place and it's all a colassal waste of time. I should be more surprised that people still give a shit about this stuff.