Huntsman 2012! ...?
(Thought I should bring this up in a separate thread)
Seriously, if everyone cared about jobs so much, they'd be voting for this guy. His state became first in job creation under his tenure. And he's a moderate. And he's a sophisticated guy who understands the world. I honestly can't believe more people aren't getting behind him.
He's a traitor. I don't back traitors. He was given an ambassadorship by Barack Obama and then he leveraged that position and the fame associated with it for a run against Obama. Same thing with Colin Powell in having his career built by George H.W. Bush and then actualized by George W. Bush only to turn around and stab the Bushes in the back (the Bushes literally made Powell's career).
Even Benedict Arnold was shunned in Britain. I can't stand Obama but a traitor is a traitor. Political partisanship is blind to treachery with me.
VaTech I fail to follow your logic
Think about it like a Schindler's list
Yeah, as much as I dislike Obama's policies he hasn't murdered any innocent civilians yet. Besides, presidential runs take years of planning in many cases--and at least years of deep thought. Huntsman more than likely took the ambassadorship knowing that he was going to turn around and run against Obama. People with Huntsman's lack of name recognition don't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, I should run for president." Like Benedict Arnold, his treachery was more than likely well planned and considered.
If I wanted a moderate I'd vote for Romney. Fuck moderates.
Ron Paul 2012 here.
Second that.
RP for real change, not more of the same.
there are two categories of candidates: ron paul and not ron paul
i always get hate glares when i argue for RP. i used to care, but now -- fuck em all. if this electorate is that ass-retarded all those dumb momos deserve whatever mascot the war profiteers and the international criminal bankster cabal puts up there to continue their gang-rape party of the sheeple.
Would love for Dr. Paul to be elected. But he's too divisive of a candidate. Obama won because he came across as a moderate. The moderate is who usually wins.
ditto. Obama campaigned on americans' hope that there is a way to reverse our demise; Ron Paul can actually get us out of this mess.
OP, Texas actually had the most job creation / growth, dunno where you got your figures. I think Huntsman is an alright guy, but RP is the man.
^ From the Daily Caller
The moderate usually wins? Everyone runs to the center in a general election campaign.
What happened to John McCain, Bob Dole, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, etc.? Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were hardly moderates. The Republican Revolutions of 1994 and 2010 were hardly "moderate" revolutions. Obama was hardly a moderate. The Democrats were hardly moderates in their 2006 congressional revolution.
This idea that only political moderates win elections is mythology.
It is usually the candidate that can swing the moderates to their side of the spectrum that wins an election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell
"Colin Luther Powell (pronounced /ˈkoʊlɨn/; born April 5, 1937) is an American statesman and a retired four-star general in the United States Army.1 He was the 65th United States Secretary of State, serving under President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2005. He was the first African American to serve in that position.2345 During his military career, Powell also served as National Security Advisor (1987–1989), as Commander of the U.S. Army Forces Command (1989) and as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989–1993), holding the latter position during the Gulf War. He was the first, and so far the only, African American to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
I'll let the dates speak for themselves about who and who isn't insane.
Oh the facts like "National Security Advisor - Ronald Reagan"
The fact that you think he was given his Fourth Star, Nominated for Secretary of State, whatever makes him somehow forever indebted shows your fundamental lack of understanding of how the military, and anything else in life really, works. You nominate, hire, elect, pick, whatever the person that you think would do the best job. Period. Not someone who will always agree with you. Colin Powell was ALWAYS a diplomacy first and military action as a last resort kind of guy. But, no, you're right. Your golden boy gave a guy who made Lt.Gen. (3 stars) at age 49 a job that he was completely qualified for so he can never disagree with him or his policies.
Good thing you don't have any employees if thats your attitude towards dissent among those that answer to you.
Umm, George H.W. Bush was the Vice President of the United States in 1987 and the presidential candidate for the Republican party as well as former CIA chief. You think Ronald Reagan in 1987 was not highly influenced in his selction for NSA by Bush? Bush went on to make him NSA, commander of U.S. armed forces, and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. I don't know where you're from but if you think attaining those positions is by "earning" them then you're crazy and naive. Those positions are "earned" through pure politics. Frankly, you'll meet more lower level people at the Pentagon in Arlington, VA every day of the week who are equally capable of those high level positions, but you have to have connections and helpers (like Bush) to get you to the top.
The point isn't about dissent--the point is about publicly insulting the people who helped you and endorsing their opponents. That's not "dissent"--that's called disloyalty. Huntsman is acting with the same treachery. Frankly, Rick Perry is acting the same way toward Bush, who pretty much made him governor or Texas. Bush, by the way, was an awful president--he set back our conservative movement by 20 years. But there's one thing to criticize policies, it's another thing to snub people in public who got you to where you are at.
And who the f*ck is my "golden boy"? Are you drunk?
Dude, are you really talking about Powell getting where he got because of "pure politics" and then saying him and Huntsman are "disloyal" because of acts that most would consider "pure politics"? Come on man.
Yes, why else would you have anyone to be loyal to if you got there by your merit alone? "Pure politics" and "loyalty" are not mutually exclusive.
The fact that Huntsman accepted an ambassadorship from Obama (pure, unadulterated politics is the only way to land good ambassadorships) and then turns around and runs against him (pure politics) is disloyal and borderline unethical. Why would you want a man of such pure lack of character as president? I mean, few presidential candidates have character, which is why they have the pride (arrogance?) to run for the most powerful position on the planet, but there is an issue in my mind when you see such transparent treachery.
Please tell me what can be attained in life without the use of "pure politics".
Eum aliquid suscipit quae magni beatae nemo veritatis. Impedit ut molestiae dolor sit. Ea dolores reiciendis optio fugiat dolore eos impedit. Et consectetur ut et fugit earum ea. Commodi atque reprehenderit et iusto voluptates rerum voluptatem.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...