Best GOP Candidate

[Sveon]

that's just sad

 

[GenMarshall]

Who ever would bring in jobs to America and not a right wing nutjob.

 

[downtown]

Most of his presidency has shown him with a higher disapproval rating than approval rating... and an approval rating of about 40%.
Since when he was elected, it was obviously over 50%, I'd say he's not looking to strong.

However, the Repubs could easily make him look way better if they did nominate someone like Palin/Bachman...

Nah, you only need 47-48%. 3rd parties will capture `2% of the total vote.

 

[Cutlass]

And do you really think this is who Obama tends to hang out with?

But he's never tried to convince people that he was one of them.

 

[bhsup]

Ha! touché. My point, though, was that politicians since time immemorial had always played to the audience. It's a given and really not something to hold against any of them as it's practically part of the job description.

Though...Dukakis in the tank was still just so over the top funny...

 

[JollyRoger]

Ha! touché. My point, though, was that politicians since time immemorial had always played to the audience. It's a given and really not something to hold against any of them as it's practically part of the job description.

Though...Dukakis in the tank was still just so over the top funny...

Almost as funny as Palin trying to hit the broadside of a caribou.

 

[Cutlass]

Ha! touché. My point, though, was that politicians since time immemorial had always played to the audience. It's a given and really not something to hold against any of them as it's practically part of the job description.

Though...Dukakis in the tank was still just so over the top funny...

Which is all fair enough. But it's a question of where does the line begin to offend the sensibilities? Dukakis in the tank, Kerry in the NRA, Bush as a regular Joe...

Obama may try to play to the audience of the working class. But he isn't of it. Still, he grew up fairly poor, and overcame. Romney's blood is almost as blue as Bush. And quite frankly, the early campaign soundbites I've heard from him piss me the hell off. So I'm not inclined to be kind to the guy. He's really never done anything that would make me think he was an acceptable president. But the fact that his entire political career is pandering to the audience, and not just the occasional campaign photo-op, really gives me quite a low opinion of him.

 

[Bei1052]

This is craziness here, but I strongly believe that if Ron Paul were to ever get the GOP Presidential nomination that he'd win.

 

[NickyJ]

This is craziness here, but I strongly believe that if Ron Paul were to ever get the GOP Presidential nomination that he'd win.

How much would you willing to bet on that?

 

[JollyRoger]

Ron Paul polls better than the rest of the GOP head-to-head vs. Obama, but I think that he would crazy talk himself out of contention.

 

[NickyJ]

Ron Paul polls better than the rest of the GOP head-to-head vs. Obama, but I think that he would crazy talk himself out of contention.

He's not going to make it. I'm sorry [Domination], but I think he's kind of a nutjob. And I think most of the country agrees.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yes, but his disapproval rating is Carteresque... that's the kicker.

Jimmy Carter - 5/18-21/79 -Gallup- Disapproval - 53%

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Carter

Barack Obama - 5/15-17/11 - Fox/OpinDynamics - 41%

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating.cfm

George W. Bush was between 45-50% disapproval in the weeks leading up to his re-election.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush

Bill Clinton - 5/11-14/95 - Gallup/CNN/USA - 42% disapproval

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Clinton

George H.W. Bush - 5/23-26/91 -Gallup - 16% disapproval

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush (G.H.W.)

Ronald Reagan - 5/20-23/83 -Gallup - 43% disapproval

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Reagan

Looks Obama's disapproval numbers are more Reaganesque and Clintonesque than Carteresque at this point in his Presidency.

W demonstrated that you can win with relatively high disapprovals and Papa Bush demonstrated that a lot can happen in a year and a half.

 

[GamezRule]

And HW demonstrated that you can screw it all up.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is craziness here, but I strongly believe that if Ron Paul were to ever get the GOP Presidential nomination that he'd win.

Sadly, I don't think America likes freedom enough to vote for Ron Paul. Most Americans are content with the status quo.

How much would you willing to bet on that?

I'm willing to bet money that if he's right, I'd be happy

Though I'd be more happy if the D3K/NickyJ ticket wins

He's not going to make it. I'm sorry [Domination], but I think he's kind of a nutjob. And I think most of the country agrees.

I'm too tired to argue right now, will be back tomorrow

My temporary response is no, he isn't. And you don't really have any good reason to say he is other than that there are issues you disagree with him on.

In a sense, you are just like my dad, agreeing with me on most issues, but not logically able to deduce the proper candidate from that information

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Bailing out GM also was socialism, not free market. There is a reason they needed bailing out...
And, the money they are making now, it's from selling gas guzzlers...

Actually is was quite capitalist. Remember that capitalism and laissez-faire are not the same thing. As we discussed before, the rich saved their rich buddies.

Besides, this is not the first time the government has saved a company or a bank from collapse. They saved Penn Central Railroad back in 1970, and it bailed out Lockheed back in 1971. And then there was the famous salvation of Chrysler in 1980.

If GM can't compete without taxpayer assistance, screw them. I don't get any interest free $50B bail outs. That's not at no cost when we are $14T in debt, and our budget deficit is over $1T/year.

You realize that most of the bailouts are already paid back to the government, right? Only a small fraction (though still a huge amount of actual money) is "missing."

I find that I agree with Kochman on this. Bailing out the companies didn't really "Save Jobs" it just delayed the inevitable.

It made the transition smoother, instead of sudden. Sudden things are dangerous. It probably bought them a few more years of business, and that's a few more years that a few hundred thousand industrial workers still have jobs. That's pretty worth it.

As for the bank bailouts, our resident economist, JH, posted something rather fun a few days after those bailouts:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=309989

On Thursday at 11:00 a.m. the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw-down of money market accounts in the U.S., to the tune of $550 billion was being drawn out in the matter of an hour or two. The Treasury opened up its window to help and pumped a $105 billion in the system and quickly realized that they could not stem the tide. We were having an electronic run on the banks. They decided to close the operation, close down the money accounts and announce a guarantee of $250,000 per account so there wouldn't be further panic out there.

If they had not done that, their estimation is that by 2:00 p.m. that afternoon, $5.5 trillion would have been drawn out of the money market system of the U.S., would have collapsed the entire economy of the U.S., and within 24 hours the world economy would have collapsed. It would have been the end of our economic system and our political system as we know it.

So the bank bailout was quite necessary to save your capitalism.

Hahaha, who do you think gives campaign donations to socialists? Poor people?

Hahaha, who do you think gives campaign donations to socialists? Rich people?

We didn't make them change anything

Yes they did!

The President announced that the administration would use TARP money to bailout GM and Chrysler. Ford Motor Company did not make a request. The "Fact Sheet" from the Bush administration states that GM and Chrysler will receive $13.4 Billion from TARP funds immediately and another $4 Billion in February if Congress approves the second tranche of TARP funds. There are a series of "conditions", most of which are illusory. Some are not however. First, the real conditions: limits on executive pay and perks, warrants for non-voting stock, government debt is senior, government can block any large deals (over $100M), no dividends. The illusory conditions request that the companies "use the funds to become viable" and set goals and targets for viability.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2008/12/gm-and-chrysler.html

And get this: GM paid its loan back early.

You can get a Japanese car, of the same quality/type... for about $2k less, on average.
Why buy american?

To support American jobs? I thought you were some sort of American nationalist? Is the communist really defending American jobs more than you?

 

[Cutlass]

Word on the radio this morning is that former Pennsylvania US Senator Rick Santorum will officially be entering the race today. What do people think about him?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It made the transition smoother, instead of sudden. Sudden things are dangerous. It probably bought them a few more years of business, and that's a few more years that a few hundred thousand industrial workers still have jobs. That's pretty worth it.

Wait, you are a socialist. Why on Earth are you defending giving money to rich people?

Besides that, it teaches big businesses that they can be irresponsible and the government will save them. That isn't a good thing.

 

[Tee Kay]

Wait, you are a socialist. Why on Earth are you defending giving money to rich people?

He, like, explained his reasons in the post you freaking quoted.

Besides that, it teaches big businesses that they can be irresponsible and the government will save them. That isn't a good thing.

Yeah, unfortunate. You've gotta balance the pros and cons, you know, that sort of thing.

Being a socialist doesn't mean one has to be dogmatic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wait, you are a socialist. Why on Earth are you defending giving money to rich people?

Because doing so, in this case, preserved the lives of several hundred thousand workers for a few more years, jobs that probably would have disappeared or been sent overseas. I'm not defending the go ol' boy system, and I'm not supporting the golden parachutes. Like I said, both the banks and the auto manufacturers paid back nearly all of the money lent to them. It wasn't just given away, like many conservative pundits keep trying to make it seem. It had a net benefit.

Besides that, it teaches big businesses that they can be irresponsible and the government will save them. That isn't a good thing.

Don't be silly. They already knew this. Government is almost always on their side.

Being a socialist doesn't mean one has to be dogmatic.

Very much so!

 

[kochman]

Like I said, both the banks and the auto manufacturers paid back nearly all of the money lent to them. It wasn't just given away, like many conservative pundits keep trying to make it seem. It had a net benefit.

It was corporate welfare. End of story.

And, the auto industry bail out resulted in $14B loss. That's pretty big.