I've Decided

What makes you think that and since when is speaking additional languages not a good thing? Particular when it the language used by a country with which we have a very complex political and economic relationship? Maybe you should look at Huntman's record as Gov of Utah. When I looked it over it seems to be for the most part fiscally and socially conservative with a few blemishes. Romney is all over the map. Hard to compare records since Mass. is very different politically then Utah. Overall the biggest problem I have with Romney is that he will say and do anything to get into office so it is very difficult to figure out what he stands for other than himself. A lot like Gingrich in that one regard however not overall since my opinion of Gingritch is similar to yours.....I will never vote for him and actually will readily vote against him in any election.

 

I don't think its bad that Huntsman speaks Chinese... What I basically meant was that he is really no better than voting for Obama, imo. Huntsman speaks glowingly about Obama, worked for him, and seems to absolutely adore him. That's not really what I have in mind when I vote. As for your negative opinion on Romney, at least Romney has some real world dirt under his fingernails and some actual understanding about jobs and their creation, unlike Huntsman, Obama, Gingrich, and the rest of the posers in this race. Although I'm also not naive enough to believe that my vote is a deciding factor. I just enjoy going out and putting my vote in even though at this point Romney seems inevitable.

 

I don't adhere to your "understanding about jobs and their creation" line of BS. Venture capital is about creating individual wealth for the investors not about creating jobs. Both Huntsman and Romney have Gov. experience and Huntsman actually did well enough to win two terms. If you want data on how politicians foster job creation from within government that is where you look-at their records as Governors. He had the best approval ratings I've ever seen...As high as 90% at times and left that office with an approval rating over 80%. Must have done something right wouldn't you say?  He also served in the commerce dept. of Bush Sr. dealing with trade policy. I don't know about you but my industry thrives on trade policy.   

Maybe Huntsman is actually not afraid to give an honest opinion? Has more loyalty to the people than his party? Could that actually be possible? He has worked for Reagan and both Bush's so I don't think he is a Republicrat. Both parties are the same anyhow....Main objective for both parties->support the party and the big monied interests that support them. The only difference is one supports a little more personal welfare in addition to the corporate welfare and the other supports a little less personal welfare and more corporate welfare. My main objective is actually my only objective...Keep both parties from controlling everything. In any case I like people who have actually shown that they can function well working within either party's administration. People like Bob Gates, Colin Powell etc. They actually have the skill set required to get constructive things done in a two party system.

And you think Romney is? Well maybe you either run a hedge fund or a bank?

It would seem as though you support Huntsman, and you've also bought into this whole bogus class warfare argument.. I agree with you on one point, we do need a Governor this time around and not a lawmaker who generally hides in a legislative body where he basically gets away with doing nothing, or voting present like our current vacationer in chief Obama. All this seems somewhat pointless now as Romney is all but inevitable, especially with desperate Newt and Rick Perry self destructing and cutting class warfare campaign commercials for Obama. Its time to turn this all around and I wouldn't rely on a guy like Huntsman to do it, especially with his soft China policies. He seems to have no problems with our trade deficit or China's manipulation of currency,  for that reason alone I consider him extremely weak. Then factor in his glowing reviews of Obama and we are talking disaster. More of the same. And remember, Palin had a 90% approval in Alaska until she became a VP candidate and went under the microscope. We have vetted Romney already in a national campaign and there won't be any surprises. He has flaws, but hes generally a good man and would make a good President.

I'll bet they aren’t very big on Christmas either ... so what. We viewed the USSR as an empire of evil with thousands of nukes and plenty of long range delivery systems including nuke submarines off our coastlines. What are the Iranians going to do, swim over here and kill us as we sleep, get a grip. As long as there are nuclear weapons, there will be a proliferation of them and they will, if not already, fall into the hands of people with ‘less’ scruples than the benign USG, the only government in the world to actually use nukes in a war as WMD’s. It is just a matter of time. Personally, I would be much more concerned with Pakistan … they already have the nukes, no guesswork involved. I want our people Home and out of the war for profit business … I am voting for Ron Paul and I agree, our initial involvement in Europe was totally a financial decision on the part of the USG … if you think that makes it just, we just have a DOO is all. We have current situations that require immediate solutions or at least a pointer in the right direction. With his candor and constitutional stands, I think he could actually control the Executive branch for a change and not be some illiterate mouthpiece for the powers that be. I could not vote for Romney either.

I would just sit it out if Ron Paul were the candidate. He seems to be a true dove in the vain of Carter and Chamberlain and that's truly dangerous for security. At least Obama seems to understand that part of the job. Terrorists have been dropping like flies all over the world under Obama's watch and I'm sure that would end under Paul. That's the Presidents first responsibility and the first consideration for casting a vote, imo.

That does seem to be the American way ... my way or nothing. Carter was an idiot and Chamberlain was a traitor ... I think you are just off base here. I am much more impresses with voting records than wishy washy PC policics and conjectures. If you think we need to poke our big nose into everyone elses business ... RP wouldn't be the one to vote fo. thats for sure. Santorum seems to have a similar agenda ...

Just in case you wanted to know why we invite these things on ourselves ... defending Our People, I think not. He doesn't think Obama is doing so good???

 

 

Actually I was born into a society where class "warfare" as you call it has always existed. It exists in almost every society I know except maybe some of the tribal areas of places like Papua New Guinea. In places like that they simply have tribal warfare. In most modern societies you have classes of one sort or another. We may have more mobility than many other societies to move amongst the classes however some things make it easier and somethings make it harder to do so. I'm not holding my breath however to see the ruling class change their status though. You should look at recent class mobility statistics from around the world. You will probably be quite surprised. The class warfare deniers seem to be very good warriors themselves. Just take a listen to Gingrich.

I don't actively support him however I do like people who actually do (or at least try to do) what they say because the rest are simply contestants in what they think is a popularity contest. I do not like phonies so that really only leaves Paul and Huntsman IMO. So we are left with the economy which has more to do with what the a-holes in congress are not doing and foreign affairs in which although I agree with some of Ron Paul's Ideals, I really don't think they are realistic when I look at what is actually happening in the world. Support Huntsman No. More likely to vote for than the others.Yes.

I don't believe it is a qualification...Simply easier to analyze the record because the voting records of legislators are much more complex.Bush Sr. was 1000% better than his son and was not a Governor. He had foreign policy experience and understanding and that is actually the qualification I look for (as well as what their foreign policy stance is as well) . Most candidates don't have much of that so then I look at whether I think they will listen to others or not.

Nothing is inevitable or pointless simply because the pundits say so. They have been saying Romney from the get-go for a reason and the reason is not because he is best for you or me. It is because they think he is best for them. Only you can decide what is best in your eyes unless you decide to drink the various flavors of kool-aid that are out there. It comes in many flavors. Saying something is inevitable really means "why don't the rest of you just stay home". Then those with the money fund the "inevitable" so they can buy their piece of the pie.

He was an ambassador so the policies are not his. Remember...Ambassadors are simply "information gatherers" amongst their other normal duties and not much more. Trade policy is difficult. As far as his stance on China what do you suggest? Tariffs and a trade war? How about comparing his stance with Romney's? As if Romney even has the sack to say what he really thinks. He has no nuts.  He doesn't say what he thinks, he mostly says what he thinks you want to hear and nothing more. Isn't that rather obvious by now? How many times do you have to see him change his tune after the polls show what he said the day before was the wrong song and dance? You want a trade war? I suggest you start reading The Wall Street Journal and Forbes before you decide that Huntsman's "weak" stance is or isn't better than Romney's "flex my muscles for the audience" stance.

Seems? What makes things "seem to appear" to you? Things don't seem to me. I have seen him speak about such issues and address those specific issues as existing problems. I may agree or disagree with what he believes to be the most appropriate course of action however he seems has addressed those specific issues more thoroughly than most if not all of the other candidates. Again do yourself a favor and read what the actual experts write. It is a lot different from the 30 second sound bytes created for the "show" debates.

Show me the glowing reviews he has cast. He has certainly made specific positive comments about very specific decisions that the Obama administration has made but at least he can give an honest opinion if he thinks credit is due as opposed to those who find a way to criticize everything....What don't you understand about the nature of divisive politics? You are best to give answers based on issues and not politics if want to validate opinions.

I would agree he at least "appears" to be good family man. Would make a good president? Might make a good president and might not is more like it.

Maybe no "personal life" surprises however there will be surprises when it comes to how he deals with the issues. There were many surprises for the people in Mass. when he was the Governor. Although I do care very much about character my scrutiny goes much further than someone voting for the next American Idol simply because they have a good song and dance.

 

 

Great Clip.

Typical hypocrisy. He states the current administration is doing nothing, Then states he doesn't know what they are doing and hopes maybe they are doing some of the things we are seeing happening. DOH

At least Romney waits until the next speech to contradict himself.

Not to mention the whole "sanction game" and resulting "shouting match" occurring as he speaks. If the UN Inspection/talks that is planned actually occurs near the end of the month I guess he'll write that off too.

Gingrich will take credit for it, Romney will say it was actually his plan that he secretly conveyed to Obama , Santorum will say it was God answering his prayers, while Huntsman and Paul will say what they actually think about it.

Unfortunately, we do not have a real choice in my state.  So I will be skipping the primary.

You can always choose a write in. That way even if you know they won't win, in a few years nobody can blame you for making the wrong choice and you can be confident that nobody can even come close to disputing that your choice wouldn't have been a much better choice.

Nope, write-ins are not allowed in primaries in this state.

Ouch.....

Republican primaries are usually predictable affairs and dark horse candidates never occur. An Obama couldn't rise from a Republican primary. A guy who has done virtually nothing for his party except one keynote speech in 04 and 4 years in Government with no real record of achievement or even a significant law that bear his name. Romney is the next guy in line for the GOP and that is typically how it works with Republicans. Mittens is just running out the clock and that's really all he has to do while Newt and Perry have to throw it down the field. They mix it up a little and try to make the imbeciles think they have a choice when all along its already been decided. By the time these guys even get here to the East Coast the whole thing is usually over anyway. By the time I vote its already always openly decided.

Who says so? You? Where outside your imagination is this so-called line? Candidates need two things. A history, and money to finance the storytelling of that history as.well as to finance the discrediting of the stories told by the opposition. It has more to do with the money needed to spread the stories than some imaginary line theory that would be something I would expect to hear out of the mouths of  pundits. Actually that is where I first heard that kind of hogwash. 

You at least at first gave decent reasoning for why you perceive Romney to be your best choice however are you now revealing the true reason why you made that choice? Seems to me thinking others vote for people because they are "the next in line" might be a bit condescending to those who made even the same choice for their own valid reasons. Romney isn't even close to getting a majority of the vote so is it that the majority of others simply think the other candidates are at the head of the line?

Maybe you should study a bit of history before you claim "dark horse" candidates never win republican primaries or whatever you mean by "occur". As far as predictability maybe you should learn something about "Statistics and Probabilities" before you make even more nonsense claims. Election Predictions are based on polls, and polls change for many reasons including but not limited to such things as events that occur in between polls and changes in "storytelling" that are made in light of polling data. The media is shoving the "predictability" data in our faces on a daily basis. Are you deaf, dumb, and blind?

I didn't say that I picked Romney simply because I thought he was inevitable, but because I actually thought he was the best bet, even though I believe its already decided. On the Dark horse thing, I might have said "never," but I also led into it with "usually" and that left me plenty of wiggle room. I'll tell you what, I'll bet you 10 bucks, (not 10,000), that Romney is the last man standing.

It left you none...No Vaseline allowed. You used "are usually" in regards to the predictability of primaries and "never occur" in regards to dark horse candidates. You cannot conveniently decide to move your adverbs because the verb they are attached to is quite obvious. Maybe you should go back to school and learn English.

I would probably bet on Romney as well but not because "he is the next in line". I look at the money sources behind the campaigns and PACS,

 

I'll cut you a deal. I'll go back to learn English if you go back to learn manners.

Mitt Romney is a practicing Mormon and as such should be disqualified (on stupidity alone). I will grant the Christians at least have an imponderable tale to tell. Mormonism is as phony as a three dollar bill and there is nothing there to argue about as we have their complete history. He argues to this day that his Mormon Faith is strong in him … humm, room for pause … or not? This guy lost to John McCain too ... what’s up with that vote of confidence? Last man standing … I wouldn’t take a firm stand yet.

Fall of the Republic HQ full length version

Well, whatever we are going to do it had better be pretty soon … this clip shows why we need someone like Ron Paul now … at this crucial crossroad. I know there are issues with him … but his honesty and Constitutional stand is sorely needed.

Its all phony to me. Another "prophet" has a vision. Doesn't matter to me whether its a burning bush or an angel. Simply the same story regurgitated for a different audience.

He's no different than Gingrich.Both want to take your tax dollars and give them to Wall st. and big business. What is funny is he openly (and through Bain Capital) lobbied against a republican conservative backed tax reform bill that would have closed some of the loopholes he personally takes advantage of. And we all know about Gingrich and Freddie Mac. They are political clones whose only differences are how they present their hypocrisy to the public and whether they actually live by the "family values" they espouse or not.

 

The clip is a bit extreme but does put across the point. The problem with Paul is the establishment won't let him win and even if he did he would have extreme opposition from both sides of the aisle. He could wind down the war in Afghanistan....but that is already what is happening. He is very good at pointing out the problems but his solutions are not good at all. My guess is that he could possibly put us over the cliff even faster.

Never looked at it that way ... humm ... but I think we are already on the precious and I think it is going to take something quite drastic and damaging to change the direction we are headed in … and I see nothing approaching another viable solution in the republican field. What better person to throw (vote, sorry) into the middle of this mess. If there is anything politically appealing to me any more … it is electing someone (just about anyone semi-qualified) both parties despise that the people actually like. But as things stand, most people seem to bet on the most money … the root of all evil, hahaha. Our choices are quite limited as usual so ... Ron Paul is where I have to offer support based on truth speak and honest convictions. When he is gone, I will then again have to decide the least of the evils ... what a lot in life. I envision the look on the face of the king when he presents his ring for President Paul to kiss, hahaha.

No disagreement there, but "drastic and damaging" seems to be on the horizon no matter the direction. Depends on ones own point of view and own circumstances I suppose.

Neither do I. I don't consider Ron Paul providing viable solutions either though.

I don't blame anyone for seeing things that way. The establishment needs a huge wake up call.

That's simply diplomatic protocol to me. Ron Paul believes in diplomacy over military engagement so maybe what you envision is not what would actually happen? I might think otherwise when the global economy finds a way to replace the 10 mil bbls/day of black gold that is hiding behind such pragmatic kisses.

 

You know I used to laugh at Ron Paul, but these days I generally respect him, although I do still think he is totally divorced from reality on the threat of Islamic fascism and Islamic nukes. One thing about Paul though, he says what he means and doesn't focus group it or poll it to find out if its popular. That's integrity and conviction and I respect that. Paul is a truer conservative and much better man than Newt Gingrich, but his followers treat him like a cult leader, and that gives me great pause and the creeps. Paul really needs to stop saying crazy things out there, like "the US shouldn't have fought WWII." Paul would be a tough vote for those reasons. I'm not sure if I could do it, but I wouldn't rule it out in a general election against Obama. I would rule out Gingrich. I would never vote for him.

Ridiculous statement. That implies that his followers are doing so blindly and without good reason. I strongly disagree with a lot of Ron Paul's "solutions", however it is obvious to me why many people support him.

Not quite what he said. He was asked hypothetical questions which did not mirror the circumstances of what actually occurred. Best I can make of much of the speculation regarding that issue: his views tend to follow along the lines of wouldn't go to war for strictly humanitarian reasons and that the situation would have to present a threat to the US and it would always necessitate congressional approval. Most of this controversy revolves around his position on Israel. Once he mentioned "examining" and potentially cutting the amount of foreign aid we commit to Israel he stepped on a hornet's net. Best to look at video's of Ron Paul's actual words about this issue because there are a lot of opposing forces who will paint this one any way they wish since this involves a very large sum of taxpayer dollars.