Republican Debate
Im pretty sure Gingrinch is gonna drop out after this debate the way he is changing all the talks aimed at him as a way to bolster the republicans as a whole vs obama... anyone agree or any other insights?
Im pretty sure Gingrinch is gonna drop out after this debate the way he is changing all the talks aimed at him as a way to bolster the republicans as a whole vs obama... anyone agree or any other insights?
+95 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 24 | 9h | |
+37 | Interviews Are So Fake | 24 | 8h | |
+33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 20 | 20h | |
+29 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 15h | |
+26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 6d | |
+25 | Non-Competes Banned | 17 | 3h | |
+22 | Ideas for things to do with a free semester before starting ft? | 9 | 1d | |
+20 | Sabotaging Peers to Get Ahead? | 34 | 4d | |
+18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 2d | |
How do I become Sigma | 12 | 1h |
Career Resources
They all pretty much suck, but I think Romney looked solid tonight.
Also, why is Bachmann still there?
Remember it's not about how the man behaves during the debate, it's about how he behaved during his political career!
I still love Rick Perry (no homo). No matter what you say, he was the only one to come out and say what many know already- SS is gonna collapse. Ponzi Scheme...I agree. And that question directed at him about one scientist that disbelieves in global warming...I've heard of ones, but can't remember their names. Can Brain Williams name a global warming scientist? (Al Gore doesn't count)
Michelle Bachmann actually sounded coherent, but the Romney-Perry stuff was the center of attention all night. If you just took tonight's answers, Bachmann would look like a viable candidate. Well, except that she mentioned $2 gas... Ron Paul didn't do too well IMHO. And the question that Americans are gonna ask tomorrow is..."there are other people running?"
Newt fucked up running this year. If he ran last time he might have won or at least come close. Even with the Obama-fanaticism that went on, remember...he almost lost. To a pretty liberal McCain. I think McCain would have been a far better President than Obama in retrospect, because Obama has painted himself into an ideological box where Keynes is the only way out. Laffer and Hayek need not apply. I hate McCain but he could probably have played both sides.
Now the viability of a Tea Party candidate is cemented because the Keynesian stuff has pretty much been exhausted...and failed. If a Tea Party candidate ran against Obama the first time around it might have been different (because we didn't know 100% that the stimuli would fail). Now we need supply side reforms to revitalize the economy- something Obambi is not willing to do.
Gingrich keeps saying "we're in this together" because he has so much shit in his closet. Namely his ex-wife. If any candidate took him seriously he would be there throwing invective right back at him.
I wish Christie would get off his fat ass and run already, so I wouldn't feel like I'm wasting my vote by voting republican in 2012. And am I the only one that thinks Bachmann ain't half bad for an older broad? (yes I know I'm odd)
I like Romney personally, I think huntsman and Romney would make a good pairing on the business and international relations side but a double Mormon team wouldn't get the heavy evangelical vote . Does anyone think Romney and perry would team up?
If Romney wins it's gonna be him and Marco Rubio. Slight chance of Perry.
If Perry wins it could be anyone. It could be Huntsman- he'll need an inroad into the North and someone who's slightly more liberal. Chris Christie (if he runs) or Herman Cain (because he's black) or Bobbie Jindal (because he's more liberal) are other prospects.
MMBin: Even though he probably doesn't have a chance, Ron Paul has been saying all of that since before Perry hit the juice on his first electric chair
If you don't live in Texas then you really don't know Rick Perry. He's a POS. He is courting the Tea Party, but his record speaks for itself. He's your typical big government deceiver.
Romney? Ha, he might as well run as a Republicrat.
Looks like I'll be writing in my choice again.
im happy with taking a moderate republicrat :P
I'll take anything over Obama, but they won't get my vote unless they share my views.
I want a Tea Party dupe. I love Ron Paul, but he has less than a snowball's chance in hell of winning the nomination. If he does it will be Barry Goldwater all over again. A great candidate, but one that's gonna get steamrolled in the general election. I see Perry as Reagan in this situation. Similar, but slightly more moderate. Better looking, an OK speaker (Reagan was better) and has massive support. People say Reagan ran up all these deficits, but the fact is he ran them up because of defense, otherwise he did what he said he would. If Perry at least tries to do what he says (which is strictly anti-deficit and really nothing that could run up massive deficits like Reagan) he will be a fantastic President.
Imagine how much more it would have cost us if the Soviet Union had not collapsed. No matter what liberals say about the long term effects of Truman policies and other Presidents, no one can say that Reagan's spending did not put the short term pressure on the USSR that expedited its collapse. Gorbachev repeatedly pleaded with Reagan to abandon SDI, and tried to make a similar program. They spent tons of money trying to get a missile defense, because without one the US could just nuke them without fear of retribution (in theory). Even though SDI never worked too well, that "crazy idea", among others, destroyed the USSR.
Ron Paul would be great, but I'll echo the snowball's chance in hell comment. I think he is one of the few economically literate people in Congress. Even on issues I disagree with him on, I respect that he has stuck to his beliefs and not resorted to pandering. Also having a MD in the whitehouse would do wonders for streamlining our healthcare system.
Romney is clearly intelligent, and would undoubtedly be a very competent president. Some of his past choices have been a little unsettling (eg MA's proto-Obamacare), but I think he would be able to lead an economic recovery. I don't think he has a chance of getting the nomination though: most of middle America still looks at Mormonism like a cult. I won't even address Huntsman, because, as much as I like him, he has literally 0 chance of winning.
I am actually glad to see Perry take the lead. I think he has the best chance to take on Obama on the national stage, and that is really what matters now. He might not have the academic or business credentials of the aforementioned nominees, but he has a great track record. And most importantly, he is a strong figure. We need somebody who can corral the legislature into actually passing an agenda, as opposed to this bipartisan quagmire Obama has formed.
Somehting I'd like to point out that is a major problem with voters today. Some of you guys keep saying Ron Paul has not chance. While that may be true, why not vote for someone who shares your beliefs? Why keep voting for the status quo? All you'll get in the long run is what we have today.
See the 2000 election, with voters voting for Nader instead of Gore.
I am not sure how you do it, but I vote based on what I believe. If you keep voting based on who you think is gonna win, nothing will ever change. We'll continue to have lifelong worthless politicians.
Ron Paul > everybody else
Do some research on your own rather than watching that load of BS on extreme-lefty media channels. They didn't ask Paul questions on purpose. This dude has a massive underground following and raped the last 3 debates (according to polls on msnbc, CNN) with over a 75% vote. The media are scared of him cause he represents REAL CHANGE.
C'mon guys, we're better than the status quo.
My point is not to push who I am voting for, rather for you guys to vote based on who is aligned with your beliefs, not who's gonna win.
Harum totam ut dolores voluptatem in aperiam dolore. Hic totam molestias voluptates dignissimos. Consequuntur aut voluptas et voluptate est consectetur animi. Omnis nemo voluptates eum ab non. In dolorem totam molestias et nemo. Dolor voluptatem enim sequi saepe enim velit quo. Laborum eius laboriosam qui quia a aut voluptatem.
Aut eius quas et velit. Tempore in laborum laborum culpa veniam quia minima modi. Repellendus et enim explicabo voluptates. Sed quod nihil consequatur esse maiores voluptate.
Eaque debitis beatae ut consequatur similique. Debitis exercitationem consequatur nihil odit architecto dolores molestiae. Quam ut ut maiores maiores qui.
Suscipit cupiditate molestias aliquam ratione molestiae sunt. Esse optio natus ipsa voluptas culpa quidem rerum. Molestias quo vel omnis consequuntur tempore. Rem rerum in omnis et. Magnam autem aut ea cumque cumque.
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...