MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 15, 2008 14:52:09 GMT -5
CNN.com has a nice side by side comparison of the candidates on the issues, but I'll admit, it's hard to decide who I want.
I'll only compare Romney, McCain, and Huckabee, since currently, Giuliani is out of it.
Taxes--
I'm going to go to McCain's site to look into his opinions further, but Romney seems to have the edge with me because his is the most realistic. From what I'm seeing, the GOP candidates must have been debating the Fair Tax, which replaces the income tax with a national sales tax, and eliminates the IRS. It sounds like that's Huckabee's baby.
Romney hasn't endorsed this idea, which on the surface sounds interesting. The more you spend, the more you pay in tax. This is Huckabee's baby.
McCain seems in favor of it too, though it doesn't sound like this is a big thing for him. I could be wrong.
The problem with it is exactly what Giuliani says--it will be costly to implement and take years to phase in. Romney is the only one that talks about eliminating the death and capital gains taxes, which is great for home and business owners, and it's a big issue with me.
Edge: Romney
Iraq--they're all pretty much the same here--which is to be against forced time tabled troop withdrawal, noting that the president has access to info the public just doesn't. So I guess you have to go with gut when deciding who is the best of the bunch here.
Given his life in the military, I would give the edge to McCain here.
Immigration:
Huckabee supports Bush's plan to give some illegals citizenship. So does McCain, though he wants to build a big 700 mile fence on the border.
Romney is by far the toughest on illegal immigrants, at least on this issue, and so am I, so I give him the edge here.
So I guess for me, it's between Romney and McCain, and I'll have to look into their websites a bit more.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 15, 2008 19:02:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 16, 2008 13:27:18 GMT -5
If you never really understood the cracks on Dubya being a sincerely stupid man, you should have seen Nightline last night.
I hadn't actually seen Dubya speak in some time, but wow...really inarticulate, always grasping for the right word, and many times it comes out poorly anyway. But what really got me was the number of times in the piece he was referred to as a "deeply religious man" and then to see him cap off the segment by trying to make an analogy between his Presidency and some bible passage about the Lord riding on a ship in rough seas waiting for the calm. I am only as well-versed in the bible as I had to be as a kid being forced to go to an occasional church service, but even I know that The Lord never rode in a fucking ship. It was Jonah that rode in the ship and it was God who sent the storm to torment the boat as a punishment for Jonah's irreverence...had absolutely nothing to do with the point Shrub was attempting to make. He's really just a very dim witted man....and what's more hypocritical is that the religious-right whose asses he sucks, won't call him out on this complete bastardized account of the biblical passage.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 22, 2008 14:36:31 GMT -5
So Fred Thompson has exited stage left. I would not be surprised to see him pegged as John McCain's running mate if McCain ends up with the nomination, as those two are running buddies, and Thompson does have some appeal although he dropped the ball here.
This is a two-horse race for the Republican nomination between McCain and Romney, although a few others are still wasting time trying to edge in.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 22, 2008 14:42:21 GMT -5
Thompson rules. He just had no shot. We at Heckle House wish him well in his future endeavors.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 22, 2008 14:47:55 GMT -5
for a fossil, he has a hot wife
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 23, 2008 18:30:20 GMT -5
I think I will eliminate Huckabee from GOP candidates I will consider supporting. His whole candidacy is based on his religion, and I think that if he gets the nomination, whoever the democrats nominate will destroy him.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 18:34:40 GMT -5
So, you're problem with him is not a potential Presidency driven by pandering to the religious-right, but rather his perceived inability to beat a Democrat?
Scary.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 23, 2008 18:50:26 GMT -5
you want to root for a guy you think can win, otherwise he'd be for Steve Forbes.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:16:25 GMT -5
Yeah of course...but do you go as far as supporting a douche just because he has a chance of winning.
The last thing this country needs is a religious zealot running the show. I guess he's better then Mitt Romney though, who basically told me, via his speech in Texas, that HIS God is not MY God and HE would not be MY President.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 23, 2008 19:21:03 GMT -5
The religious right is far less dangerous to the future of this country than Hillary Clinton or Barrack Obama. I'm not in favor of a religious zealot, but there is no one less qualified on the ballot than Hillary Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:29:28 GMT -5
NOTHING is more dangerous to the future of this country than the religious right.
Conservative or Liberal...all either can really do in either direction (positively or negatively) is tweak the economy.
Religious zealots will seek to stomp on civil liberties that will affect all of us. Freedom of religion includes Freedom FROM Religion. I'd move to another country before I'd participate in a society that will allow some bible thumping freak to start altering the Constitution so that it falls in line with the Old Testament.
And BTW, Hilary is one of the MOST qualified people on the ballot if you measure that in terms of experience. Her problem is that she is a polarizing lightning rod, and will simply be rendered ineffective as a President and cause nothing but 4 years of stalemates and logjams in Congress. To think that Hilary would be DANGEROUS, as opposed to INEFFECTIVE as a President is reactionary paranoia spoon fed to you by dolts who don't understand the government even on a High School Government course level like Bill O'Reilly. If you're gonna be against someone, at least be against them for reasons that can be supported - Hilary would be an impotent President, and that is the only danger in electing her.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 23, 2008 19:31:31 GMT -5
Romney is still the best choice.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:36:22 GMT -5
You're really for Romney even though he has professed a sincere desire to modify the Constitution so that it may more accurately reflect HIS interpretation of "Gods Word?" His words not mine.
Wow, this is astonishing. I'm not even a Republican, on a message board FULL of Republicans, and even I can see that McCain is the ONLY guy the Elephants are running that actually knows what the fuck he is talking about when it comes to the Executive branch of the government and how to cohesively work with Legislative branch.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 23, 2008 19:37:44 GMT -5
Thank goodness middle America will rise up and save us from Hillary and possibly Obama.....Now on the Republican side I think McCain and maybe Rudy if he would have kept things on track are the only two Republicans that could win the general election. Romney and Huckabee are too "religious" and would never win a general election.So I am hoping either one of them get the nod......if this makes any sense...lol
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 23, 2008 19:41:53 GMT -5
And BTW, Hilary is one of the MOST qualified people on the ballot if you measure that in terms of experience
Eh...um....huh?? What? Look at the Republican arsenal, for example. Huckabee and Romney, long runs as Govs. Rudy has a tenure to speak of. McCain, speaks for itself. What exactly are you calling "experience" here??
McCain will get the nod.
Anyone who thinks Rudy has a shot is off their gourd. He has as much baggage as Hillary does. He is getting beaten down in polls in his own state, and his lifeline of Florida he is now trending THIRD. Once he loses there (he will) he's out (which he has admitted)
This is McCain vs Romney folks, and McCain will take it, which I have been saying FOR MONTHS. And Fred Thompson, who a huge base of CONSERVATIVES adore will be his running mate, evening out his more liberal-Republican tidings, and we have a winner.
Research McCain. See how well he is handling the press and the public. And how STOKED he is to get his guns on Obama and especially Hillary.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:44:08 GMT -5
My choice would be Edwards, clearly. However, I wouldn't shit a brick over McCain, because he is clearly intelligent enough to understand the issues.
My summary: Edwards is the candidate that most closely falls into my beliefs on the economy. Hilary would be ineffective because she would polarize the entire legislative branch. Obama is a lot more style and a lot less substance than people are making him out to be. Romney and Huckabee might as well be Jim and Tammy Faye for all I care - completely dangerous zealot freaks. McCain is one smart cookie...my only problem with McCain is that economically I fear he may yet another Supply-Side groupie but he wont be gun shy in making the tough decisions. Rudy has no shot and he has proven himself to me to be an unabashed panderer.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 23, 2008 19:44:50 GMT -5
Tom I agree what you say about Rudy whole heartedly.....though I would have liked him in there..
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Jan 23, 2008 19:46:10 GMT -5
I like McCain as well.... Romney has run things before. I don't put a lot of stock in Senators, as what do they really do?
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 23, 2008 19:46:11 GMT -5
Chris as a Republican I do agree Edwards is the candidate that is most electable on the Democratic side but thankfully Hillary and Obama will probably squash any chance of that happening...
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 23, 2008 19:48:02 GMT -5
Romney and Huckabee might as well be Jim and Tammy Faye for all I care - completely dangerous zealot freaks.
I am no Romney fan, but you guys are pegging him wrong. He has shown no proclivities towards this, no matter what quotes Cho thinks he is dredging up. Romney sure hasnt alienated himself from his own state, of Massachussets. I would think they would have shied away from a "dangerous zealot freak."
Huckabee too - he is a smart guy, very articulate and charismatic, and not "dangerous." He is just naive, too nice a guy, knows nothing of foreign policy, and is too much "shucks and golly." Some of you guys are just looking to aim guns at anything dealing with religion and God, is all.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:50:46 GMT -5
I said ONE OF, Tom. Clearly she has more exposure to the federal level of government workings than Obama, Rudy, Huckabee, and Romney. Being a powerful, outspoken First Lady counts for a LOT. Again, I qualified my statement as Hilary being qualified only in terms of experience, not that I support her above all others.
But I don't even care about qualifications when it comes to Romney and Huckabee. I mean Jesus Christ (no pun intended) at least W was too stupid to actually comprehend the bible to be of any danger...these two are off their rocker. If I'm McCain, I'm embarrassed that there's even a race against these to crackpots. McCain must laugh at those Yahoos every time he sees them rambling on about God's Word. Their shtick is more Dan Quayle Family Values smokescreen horseshit - yeah, tell me fairy tales from the Bible with the country is divided over the war, a recession is pending and everyone's homes are being foreclosed on. Is GOD gonna fill up my gas tank - McCain is THEE Republican who actually talks about issues let alone comprehends them.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 23, 2008 19:50:47 GMT -5
Chris as a Republican I do agree Edwards is the candidate that is most electable on the Democratic side but thankfully Hillary and Obama will probably squash any chance of that happening...
Cap, you just dont get it.
A guy is NOT "the most electable" if he cant pull even 1 in 10 members of HIS OWN PARTY at the polls, when there are other choices.
Obama and Hillary are eminently beatable, for completely different reasons than Edwards, who is a true NON-FACTOR in every sense of the world. He can take his John Ritter looks and $500 haircuts and chew on my balls.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 23, 2008 19:53:47 GMT -5
yeah, tell me fairy tales from the Bible
Sigh. Haven't you libs learned by now?
You would be very surprised how powerful "bible toters" are at the polls, my friend. God is not a non-factor to most of this country, my friend.
And, as to Romney, have you not looked at his record, and what he has been doing in his state for years?? And Huckabee is doing the same job that dick Bill Clinton worked before he made his White House run.
You need to read up on things, Cho.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 19:55:40 GMT -5
"He has shown no proclivities toward this"
You couldn't be more wrong about this Tom. You should dig up some of his speeches...particularly a speech I was forwarded by a Mormon "friend" that he made in Texas recently.
I work for a Mormon owned company and I know from first hand experience that the Mormons are ga-ga over this guy because he is so upfront about making his religious beliefs a paramount function of his policy-making duties if elected President.
He has emphatically stated that he would like to see the Constitution amended to fall in line with "Gods Word" as he feels that misinterpretations of "Gods Word" are leading to some sort of moral bankruptcy plague in this country. He has said that.
I don't need to read up on anything as I am, and always have been an avid and hopefully objective follower of national politics. I am not even turning this into a Red vs Blue issue as you are Tom. I am laying down my support for John McCain as a Republican President who I would happily endure 4 or 8 years of, despite my objections to Supply-Side economics and the Republican party's allegiance to it. In YOUR case however, you seem to be all too eager to dismiss the Democrats chances of winning the oval office....do you not get it? The country is tired of Bush, and regardless of whether or not the Dems nominate a douche like Obama and the Republicans nominated a worthy candidate like McCain, it's still gonna be an uphill battle.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 23, 2008 20:04:20 GMT -5
Sorry, Cho, but thats not what the polls say. Hillary and Obama are ripe for the pickin'
The Democrats have made a big mistake throwing in with a woman who is so polarizing, that going in has SO MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE who will refuse to vote for her UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. She starts in the hole. On top of that, she is a woman, and sorry, in this world today, that is not going to get it done.
As to Obama, aside from the fact he is black and there is a heap of folks out there who will not vote in a black UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, he is also savagely inexperienced, and as its been said recently "is great on poetry, and short on prose." In other words, he is a good speechmaker, but he has done NOTHING in his political career to warrent the dicklicking he is getting.
These are horrible candidates, and you KNOW that I am speaking true. And, as unhappy people have been with Bush, his ratings are still higher than that DEMOCRATICALLY LED CONGRESS.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 23, 2008 20:09:56 GMT -5
Chris the country may be tired of Bush (I am not among them) but that doesn't mean that they are tired enough to vote in Hillary or Obama........
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 23, 2008 20:10:39 GMT -5
I guess TOm that was my point these are terrible candidates on the Democratic side...
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 20:15:32 GMT -5
I agree Tom. I think Hilary is too polarizing (my biggest complaint about her) and I know, although they are not my motives, that many voters would not vote for her or Obama based on sex/race. That is why I think it's foolish to say that Edwards is a non-factor.
I'm just saying that frustration with 8 years of a Republican-lead war in Iraq and a declining economy is nothing to shrug off....and if what I'm hearing as of late, that the perception of Hilary as President brings Bill back into the fold (that's the thing with you Republicans...you always cast your disdain for a liberal on to the population as a whole...and it ain't so...Bill is still wildly popular regardless of what you think of him) will make her that much more electable...and if you don't think Bill Clinton would smoke all-comers in this election, you're nuts. But I digress, I still say either Hilary or Edwards present a tough road ahead for a Republican candidate...you're big in citing polls whether it be political or TV ratings....cite your source please Tom....I wanna see where Romney, Huckabee, or McCain are running away with the popularity polls versus what the Dems have offered up. I'm not saying it's cake-walk for the Dems, but it's certainly not shooting ducks in a barrel for the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jan 23, 2008 20:19:53 GMT -5
CNN reports that Huckabee would lose to top Dems by double digits.
CNN reports that Edwards performs best against the leading Republicans.
CNN reports that McCain would beat Clinton by 2 points, tie Obama, and lose to Edwards by 8.
Polls are about as susceptible to spin doctoring by the media as baseball stats are in the hands of Balls....but you make it out as if the Republicans are running away with this thing no matter how you slice it.
|
|