Does anyone else feel the Republican't win 2012?

Personally with these candidates it seems like a long shot. The fact that Gingrich is the front-runner is lol worthy.

All depends on the candidate. Given their positions, I feel that Paul or Huntsman would have a legitimate shot toe-to-toe with Obama.

Depending on who gets the nomination and how much the economic/unemployment climate changes over the course of the year, it certainly seems like they have a shot.

All depends on the candidate. Given their positions, I feel that Paul or Huntsman would have a legitimate shot toe-to-toe with Obama.

CycleOfViolence

Paul said he would be against the civil rights act.

I agree that Huntsman might have a shot though but he is too moderate to win the primary.

[QUOTE="CycleOfViolence"]

All depends on the candidate. Given their positions, I feel that Paul or Huntsman would have a legitimate shot toe-to-toe with Obama.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Paul said he would be against the civil rights act.

I agree that Huntsman might have a shot though but he is too moderate to win the primary.

Depending on who gets the nomination and how much the economic/unemployment climate changes over the course of the year, it certainly seems like they have a shot.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="CycleOfViolence"]

All depends on the candidate. Given their positions, I feel that Paul or Huntsman would have a legitimate shot toe-to-toe with Obama.

DroidPhysX

Paul said he would be against the civil rights act.

I agree that Huntsman might have a shot though but he is too moderate to win the primary.

Its rather selfish to deny one group civil liberties because you disagree on a small part of the bill.

Would you like someone doing that to you? Although I doubt the gaff would hurt him given the Republican base it could help him in the south.

Its rather selfish to deny one group civil liberties because you disagree on a small part of the bill.

Would you like someone doing that to you? Although I doubt the gaff would hurt him given the Republican base it could help him in the south.

Banjo_Kongfooie

It wasn't really a gaffe.

And he makes an incredibly compelling arguement despite my disagreement.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

Paul said he would be against the civil rights act.

I agree that Huntsman might have a shot though but he is too moderate to win the primary.

Banjo_Kongfooie

Its rather selfish to deny one group civil liberties because you disagree on a small part of the bill.

Would you like someone doing that to you? Although I doubt the gaff would hurt him given the Republican base it could help him in the south.

He votes against any bill that has anything in it that he disagrees with, though.

And realistically, I doubt that particular comment would cost him an election; other things would.

Romney could easily win. He could easily lose as well tho.

To elaborate, if it's a close election, I think Obama wins due to the advantage of incumbency, foreign policy successes, electoral map advantages, more charisma (even if that charisma has dulled over the course of the past 3 years), and Romney looking unprincipled. If it's not a close election, I think Romney wins because at this point, dissatisfaction with the economy is the only thing that is probably going to cause even a slightly big victory. And of course it's very possible that that's what happens.

The biggest change American politics needs right now is congress. Regardless of who wins the election, it'll be just another year of filibusters unless one party takes control of both houses.

If you think those guys have baggage, wait until you get a load of the guy they're vying to unseat from the Oval Office.

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

Its rather selfish to deny one group civil liberties because you disagree on a small part of the bill.

Would you like someone doing that to you? Although I doubt the gaff would hurt him given the Republican base it could help him in the south.

DroidPhysX

It wasn't really a gaffe.

And he makes an incredibly compelling arguement despite my disagreement.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

Its rather selfish to deny one group civil liberties because you disagree on a small part of the bill.

Would you like someone doing that to you? Although I doubt the gaff would hurt him given the Republican base it could help him in the south.

Banjo_Kongfooie

It wasn't really a gaffe.

And he makes an incredibly compelling arguement despite my disagreement.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

What's wrong with those comments?

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

It wasn't really a gaffe.

And he makes an incredibly compelling arguement despite my disagreement.

QuistisTrepe_

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

What's wrong with those comments?

1. Not really a problem, a bit of a stereotype but nothing to really be concerned with.

2. Oh come on do I really have to answer that one?

3. Trials of a minor as an adult are not based on how "big/scary" a person is, but on their mental aptitude to fully understand their crime and its consequences. Nothing Paul says here suggests that blacks minors are more aware of this, therefore his comment is unfounded.

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

chessmaster1989

What's wrong with those comments?

1. Not really a problem, a bit of a stereotype but nothing to really be concerned with.

2. Oh come on do I really have to answer that one?

3. Trials of a minor as an adult are not based on how "big/scary" a person is, but on their mental aptitude to fully understand their crime and its consequences. Nothing Paul says here suggests that blacks minors are more aware of this, therefore his comment is unfounded.

This is really no worse than the infamous "bitter clingers" comment Obama made during the '08 campaign.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

What's wrong with those comments?

QuistisTrepe_

1. Not really a problem, a bit of a stereotype but nothing to really be concerned with.

2. Oh come on do I really have to answer that one?

3. Trials of a minor as an adult are not based on how "big/scary" a person is, but on their mental aptitude to fully understand their crime and its consequences. Nothing Paul says here suggests that blacks minors are more aware of this, therefore his comment is unfounded.

This is really no worse than the infamous "bitter clingers" comment Obama made during the '08 campaign.

I'd say it is. While Obama's comment was definitely a poor one, it was a more general statement about discontent that didn't target a specific group of people in the same way Paul's comments did.

Either way, I guess we can at least agree that both Obama and Paul could have expressed their points better.

I'm also not particularly sure what your point is in raising Obama's comment here. Doesn't really have anything to do with what Paul said...

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="QuistisTrepe_"]

What's wrong with those comments?

OICWUTUDIDTHAR

1. Not really a problem, a bit of a stereotype but nothing to really be concerned with.

2. Oh come on do I really have to answer that one?

3. Trials of a minor as an adult are not based on how "big/scary" a person is, but on their mental aptitude to fully understand their crime and its consequences. Nothing Paul says here suggests that blacks minors are more aware of this, therefore his comment is unfounded.

That 95% comment is pretty damn racist. And it's a hilariously idiotic non-sequitir.

What if I said something like "Due to some of the inequalities in what we laughingly call a progressive society, we can safely conclude that 95% of white folks in this country are racists." That would be a pretty racist comment, wouldn't it?

The same thing applies here.

It's pretty troubling how someone can look at that comment and fail to see what's wrong with it.

ron paul 2012, because i dont believe in magic.

Newt Gingrich 2012, because he reminds me of myself. He's unafraid to voice his opinion, no matter how much it goes against the mainstream.

Newt Gingrich 2012, because he reminds me of myself. He's unafraid to voice his opinion, no matter how much it goes against the mainstream.

DerpyMcDerp

Especially if that opinion involves divorcing his dying wife.

He has zero shot.

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

Newt Gingrich 2012, because he reminds me of myself. He's unafraid to voice his opinion, no matter how much it goes against the mainstream.

789shadow

Especially if that opinion involves divorcing his dying wife.

He has zero shot.

[QUOTE="789shadow"]

[QUOTE="DerpyMcDerp"]

Newt Gingrich 2012, because he reminds me of myself. He's unafraid to voice his opinion, no matter how much it goes against the mainstream.

DerpyMcDerp

Especially if that opinion involves divorcing his dying wife.

He has zero shot.

Bahahahahaha, nope. Knew it.

Personally with these candidates it seems like a long shot. The fact that Gingrich is the front-runner is lol worthy.

{......bunch of comics painting the candidates in a bad light..........save for one person who will be running......}

Banjo_Kongfooie

[QUOTE="Banjo_Kongfooie"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

It wasn't really a gaffe.

And he makes an incredibly compelling arguement despite my disagreement.

QuistisTrepe_

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

What's wrong with those comments?

All depends on the candidate. Given their positions, I feel that Paul or Huntsman would have a legitimate shot toe-to-toe with Obama.

CycleOfViolence

Newt Gingrich 2012, because he reminds me of myself. He's unafraid to voice his opinion, no matter how much it goes against the mainstream.

DerpyMcDerp

@CycleofViolence

Paul would get slaughtered in a general election. It would be LBJ .vs. Goldwater all over again.

I think Hunstman would have an extremely good shot at winning simply because it would be hard for Team Obama to craft a narrative against him. He's too uncontroversial and generic.

@CycleofViolence

Paul would get slaughtered in a general election. It would be LBJ .vs. Goldwater all over again.

I think Hunstman would have an extremely good shot at winning simply because it would be hard for Team Obama to craft a narrative against him. He's too uncontroversial and generic.

GreySeal9

@CycleofViolence

Paul would get slaughtered in a general election. It would be LBJ .vs. Goldwater all over again.

I think Hunstman would have an extremely good shot at winning simply because it would be hard for Team Obama to craft a narrative against him. He's too uncontroversial and generic.

GreySeal9

I think it would be closer than 486 to 52. Given the lack of parity on almost every issue between Obama and Paul I feel that it could be close.

Unfortunately the reasons you just listed are why Huntsman would not get the nomination. If he does not end up the GOP nominee I think he'd make a very good Vice President or Secretary of State.

The liberal media is certainly dreading the possibility that Ron Paul might have a shot at the nomination. Their strategy is just to say he has absolutely no chance. Unfortunately conservative talk show hosts are in bed with the mainstream republican party, and they won't help him out either.

I do believe Ron Paul would have a chance against Obama. I can just imagine him standing next to that telepromter reading loser Obama. He would shine. I feel a geunine good heartendenss when Ron Paul talks. I had to study myself before I realized how much of this war-mongering is a joke. Turns out Ron Paul is spot on. I like Gingrich, but I just don't know... The beauty of Ron Paul is that where he really differentiates himself from Obama is on the economy. That could be a wonderful thing.

The liberal media is certainly dreading the possibility that Ron Paul might have a shot at the nomination. Their strategy is just to say he has absolutely no chance. Unfortunately conservative talk show hosts are in bed with the mainstream republican party, and they won't help him out either.

I do believe Ron Paul would have a chance against Obama. I can just imagine him standing next to that telepromter reading loser Obama. He would shine. I feel a geunine good heartendenss when Ron Paul talks. I had to study myself before I realized how much of this war-mongering is a joke. Turns out Ron Paul is spot on. I like Gingrich, but I just don't know... The beauty of Ron Paul is that where he really differentiates himself from Obama is on the economy. That could be a wonderful thing.

Darkainious

[QUOTE="Darkainious"]

The liberal media is certainly dreading the possibility that Ron Paul might have a shot at the nomination. Their strategy is just to say he has absolutely no chance. Unfortunately conservative talk show hosts are in bed with the mainstream republican party, and they won't help him out either.

I do believe Ron Paul would have a chance against Obama. I can just imagine him standing next to that telepromter reading loser Obama. He would shine. I feel a geunine good heartendenss when Ron Paul talks. I had to study myself before I realized how much of this war-mongering is a joke. Turns out Ron Paul is spot on. I like Gingrich, but I just don't know... The beauty of Ron Paul is that where he really differentiates himself from Obama is on the economy. That could be a wonderful thing.

DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Darkainious"]

The liberal media is certainly dreading the possibility that Ron Paul might have a shot at the nomination. Their strategy is just to say he has absolutely no chance. Unfortunately conservative talk show hosts are in bed with the mainstream republican party, and they won't help him out either.

I do believe Ron Paul would have a chance against Obama. I can just imagine him standing next to that telepromter reading loser Obama. He would shine. I feel a geunine good heartendenss when Ron Paul talks. I had to study myself before I realized how much of this war-mongering is a joke. Turns out Ron Paul is spot on. I like Gingrich, but I just don't know... The beauty of Ron Paul is that where he really differentiates himself from Obama is on the economy. That could be a wonderful thing.

Darkainious

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Darkainious"] I like how you just regurgitated what the terrified liberal media has been spouting for months. Is he too extreme for you to vote for? Because up until recently I might have been considered part of the "general public" Darkainious

Ahh, but would you vote for him if it was him and Obama?Darkainious

Neither.

Pauls views are too flawed and Obama caters to corporations too much.

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] Ahh, but would you vote for him if it was him and Obama?DroidPhysX

Neither.

Pauls views are too flawed and Obama caters to corporations too much.

[QUOTE="Darkainious"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] And the liberal media has done a fine job in convincing the american populace that Ron Paul is extreme. Which is the exact reason why he will never get elected.surrealnumber5

[QUOTE="surrealnumber5"]

[QUOTE="Darkainious"] Ahh, but would you vote for him if it was him and Obama?Darkainious