http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e5be8d8c87f793e2b844a7ce69d9240f.png
Michel Bachmann - was too inexperience
Ron Paul - was too radical
New Gaingrich - was mired in scandal
Herman Cain - was back (and radical, oh!!! and "sexual misconduct" see a pattern here?)
Rick Santorum - got out spent and not much different from Romney
Garry Johnson/Buddy Roemer - weren't aligned close enough to the party and ran for 3rd parties instead.
Rick Perry and John Huntsman - were non issues and had even LESS Charisma as Mitt Romney
...so ya tough luck, they were stuck with Romney.
Of the people on the roster. Romney would actually be considered a "moderate" goes to show how far off center the party is nowadays.
Oh I'm just defending people like you saying there were no good candidates to begin with. I personally liked Romney the LEAST of all the candidates (at least on personality), though some of them just seem to meld into the shadows and I wasn't even sure what they really stood for. I like Ron Paul's personality, he at least brought new ideas to the table even if not the most well thought out, and I thought Newt was more moderate. Santorum was my 2nd least favorite candidate and go figure, him and Romney makes the final two.
Oh I'm just defending people like you saying there were no good candidates to begin with. I personally liked Romney the LEAST of all the candidates (at least on personality), though some of them just seem to meld into the shadows and I wasn't even sure what they really stood for. I like Ron Paul's personality, he at least brought new ideas to the table even if not the most well thought out, and I thought Newt was more moderate. Santorum was my 2nd least favorite candidate and go figure, him and Romney makes the final two.
Okaaayyy...
So, you've established that you select based on personality. That's cool, I guess. Heck, I've selected my choice based on my dislike for Obama and the fact that his challenger has an "R" after his name.
And no matter who the candidate ended up as it still would've been the same attack line from Liberals....He has no personality,he's too extreme,he's out of touch ,etc etc etc....
And no matter who the candidate ended up as it still would've been the same attack line from Liberals....He has no personality,he's too extreme,he's out of touch ,etc etc etc....
Oh no I vote on Policies and Principles when applicable. I'm just saying at least some of the candidates had likable personalities even if all their policies suck. Ron Paul was the only one with any real new ideas for the party, though I'm not entirely sure they're the best or the most responsible, at least he's not a zombie.
Isn't that so true though? Goes for all the candidates, Romney just sticks out a little more.
LOL!!!
Alright...then I guess I'm back to post number 3:
"What's your point?"
-he's a racist.
-he's white (I bet even Herman Cain would too white)
-he's against women
-he wants to take your social security and medicare
-he wants to raise taxes on the rich
-he wants to go to war
They are attacking the platform of the republican party... platform which Romney, and any candidate (except RP) would endorse to a varied degree. I mean, there is a reason why there were barely any attack ads on RP. There couldn't be any attack ads on RP. Romney is a target and with every flip flop he made, he painted another target on his back, his ass and his head. And that's why Obama will kick his ass in the first debate.
Obama is out of touch with the working class too... because he has millions. He is filthy rich. He has always been filthy rich. His father was rich as hell too. He comes from a line of very rich individuals. Why doesn't anybody say this? Obama can say it.. and he says it always when he is preaching the gospel of raising taxes on the rich. Always 3 names pop up: Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and himself.
I am against both candidates... I feel bad that the US got into this position. Europeans generally follow US elections and most are amazed at the sheer immaturity and insanity that is raging over there. I think it would benefit americans to follow some European debates and elections... see what is being discussed here. I'm not saying the maturity level is greater... but the way things are presented and the way the discourse goes can serve as a lesson on how the issues should be addressed. Because the current formula is clearly not working.
Lol ya Ron Paul would've been throwing a curve ball at the Dems they'll actually have to go back on their principles and think up new debate topics and new reasoning. Would've been so much more interesting to watch.
Reguarding policies, I've seen some Asian political leaders. They speak literally in a monotone like robots could really bore people to sleep. It's funny, we elect people who study law or business, they elect mathematicians and engineers. I personally side with Americans on this one, I think social knowledge and skills are more important than pure analytically skills to a leader personally, having both would obviously be ideal.
...politics are never mature. At least not when people have a choice. Because people are not mature.
The presidential election is very very simple. Elect who you think is the better of the two candidates for the country. Yet they have a need to feel clever and realized bashing the other side is easier than promoting your own ideas. Reason is this, there's hardly anything everyone likes, there's quite a few things almost everyone hates. There's maturity right there for you.
You speak bad about asian leaders and telling americans how to vote? Thats hilarious.
"Oh I'm just defending people like you saying there were no good candidates to begin with."
Sounded like Ron Paul "any one up here can beat Obama" - roar of applause by super conservatives at the debate. I smiled and thought to myself "all of you put together can't beat Obama".
Lol ya Ron Paul would've been throwing a curve ball at the Dems they'll actually have to go back on their principles and think up new debate topics and new reasoning. Would've been so much more interesting to watch.
Reguarding policies, I've seen some Asian political leaders. They speak literally in a monotone like robots could really bore people to sleep. It's funny, we elect people who study law or business, they elect mathematicians and engineers. I personally side with Americans on this one, I think social knowledge and skills are more important than pure analytically skills to a leader personally, having both would obviously be ideal.
...politics are never mature. At least not when people have a choice. Because people are not mature.
The presidential election is very very simple. Elect who you think is the better of the two candidates for the country. Yet they have a need to feel clever and realized bashing the other side is easier than promoting your own ideas. Reason is this, there's hardly anything everyone likes, there's quite a few things almost everyone hates. There's maturity right there for you.
Dude, quit pretending you vote in a GOP primary for any reason other than to mess up the electoral process for those that really are republicans.
Not a registers Republican (or Democrat for that matter) so I can't vote in primaries.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/e5be8d8c87f793e2b844a7ce69d9240f.png
Michel Bachmann - was too inexperience (and a woman for Republican primaries? What was she thinking)
Ron Paul - was too radical
New Gaingrich - was mired in scandal
Herman Cain - was back (and radical, oh!!! and "sexual misconduct" see a pattern here?)
Rick Santorum - got out spent and not much different from Romney
Garry Johnson/Buddy Roemer - weren't aligned close enough to the party and ran for 3rd parties instead.
Rick Perry and John Huntsman - were non issues and had even LESS Charisma as Mitt Romney
...so ya tough luck, they were stuck with Romney.
Of the people on the roster. Romney would actually be considered a "moderate" (along with Bachmann and Gainrich) goes to show how far off center the party is nowadays.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?