Gyroscopic Investing

They all suck except Rand and the Donald.

Scrooge McDuck

Desert wrote:

Libertarian666 wrote: They all suck except Rand and the Donald.

I'm not far from that opinion... I'm almost 50% there.

What do you think of Carson?  He's leading in the polls, right?

Sorry, but he is a neocon, just a soft-spoken one.

Carson's soft-spoken bedside manner thing he's got going on can be perceived as sleepy or wimpy, and he doesn't have enough executive or managerial experience to win. He'd make a great VP for Trump, though. With the two of them, populists and the religious would be overjoyed. Huge Republican turnout and they might peel away some blacks when paired with Trump's aggressive "American jobs" message. That's why he's going to be Trump's VP and Trump is going to win in a landslide.

I really don't care for anyone but Rand. But most here know that.

I like that Trump is shaking up the party, but for reasons I've peppered all over recent threads I don't like him as president.

I sort of like Kasich's style, but I'm far more weary of "reasonable sounding" guys now. W "sounded reasonable" as he was manipulating us into war. In-fact, one of the reasons I can stomach the idea of Trump as Pres being an ok deal is that he wears his ridiculous opinions on his sleeve. You don't have to wonder whether he's got ill intentions. He will straight up tell you and be proud of it.

Donald Trump is the only candidate that I cannot in good conscience vote for under any circumstances. I think he is  a nut.

Desert wrote: Comments?

Kasich should be the obvious winner if people voted based on executive experience in accomplishing actual reform while being moderate rather than extremist on all the issues.  He's very balanced.

I'm not sure why you like Jindal but he's one of those ideological types that ignores the suffering "rolling back the state" does to the lower classes.  He's got a lot of bad baggage and a reputation as an asshole.

Carson is surprised to be there and admits it.  He's not a serious candidate to me because he wouldn't know WTF he is doing.  And he's slow on the take.  And I don't like his religious cult.  I don't trust people like that not to let it influence their decisions.

Graham is a hysterical NeoConner.  The guy is rabid!

You know what you're getting with Trump and other politicians and bureaucrats will know it too.  No wink and a nod Bullshit here.  Fear.

dragoncar wrote: Scrooge McDuck

Who?

Yes there are some very good people on that list, including the neocons.

Even Scrooge McDuck would be better than Hillary.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Ad Orientem wrote: Donald Trump is the only candidate that I cannot in good conscience vote for under any circumstances. I think he is  a nut.

So you would vote for Santorum or Graham? Ugh.

I don't like either of them. But if it's a choice between either of them and Hillary Clinton, I'd likely hold my nose and pull the lever for them. I have never voted for a Democrat for a Federal office. This is an extremely unpleasant election coming up.

Reub wrote: Yes there are some very good people on that list, including the neocons.

Even Scrooge McDuck would be better than Hillary.

Oh, that must mean Trump!  I bet he really could pull the gold swim off!!!

Ad Orientem wrote: I don't like either of them. But if it's a choice between either of them and Hillary Clinton, I'd likely hold my nose and pull the lever for them. I have never voted for a Democrat for a Federal office. This is an extremely unpleasant election coming up.

You voted for that boring old elitist out-of-touch CIA stooge, George Herbert Walker Bush, back in 1992?!!  For shame.  Clinton was da man!!!  Especially playing his saxophone on The Arsenio Hall Show.

MachineGhost wrote:

dragoncar wrote: Scrooge McDuck

Who?

He's a businessman who can't be bought by special interests.  Obviously a financial genius who can handle any issue our economy throws at him.  He has personally spearheaded dangerous treasure-hunting campaigns all over the globe, so he'd be an excellent commander-in-chief.  His biggest issue w/ obtaining the republican nomination is his support for animal marriage.

In such a crazy race, ya gotta look at the aggregate, not focus on any one specific poll.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pol ... op-primary

Carson is certainly coming up fast, but Trump is still in the lead. But don't worry, since Trump is going to pick Carson as his running mate.

Perhaps the thread title should be revised to:  The Republican Candidates are Rank - Just Not as Rank as the Democratic Candidates. 

... M

TennPaGa wrote: I am enjoying your foray into Master Wizardry, PS.

I am but an apprentice, though it is pretty neat stuff! 

Pointedstick wrote:

TennPaGa wrote: I am enjoying your foray into Master Wizardry, PS.

I am but an apprentice, though it is pretty neat stuff! 

I think PS's statment might trump Tenn's. 

... M

Pointedstick wrote: Carson is certainly coming up fast, but Trump is still in the lead. But don't worry, since Trump is going to pick Carson as his running mate.

That's not historically supported and is Carson "the best people" for the VP job?  I say not.

MachineGhost wrote:

Pointedstick wrote: Carson is certainly coming up fast, but Trump is still in the lead. But don't worry, since Trump is going to pick Carson as his running mate.

That's not historically supported and is Carson "the best people" for the VP job?  I say not.

Picking for vice president someone who's also a wealthy, successful business owner technocrat type (like we might expect) makes sense on the surface but it's a waste of that person's talents. The VP has no real power or role in government; it's just a figurehead position. Better to reserve those people for Treasury Secretary or Secretary of HHS or something. Carson is a bit pander-y as a VP pick, but the two men clearly like each other and Carson delivers the religious vote like none other. Carson will look good and deliver soothing speeches and humanize Trump a bit with the juxtaposition, and his political and managerial inexperience will be neutralized by the fact that after the election, he won't actually have to do anything. He could also start the slow process of peeling away the black vote, delivering Republicans dominating victories.

You've convince me, Master Wizard!  Especially as we know crazy Uncle Joe already has the job...

A non-traditional candidate like Trump could actually do it.  Or pick someone else who will deliver him a swing voter state.  Lets be honest.  Popularity is not going to elect Trump; only 270 of those very hard to get (for Republicans) electoral votes will.

1. Kasich - Moderate, realistic, experienced, genuine, seasoned.  Executive level experience.  Would work effectively with Congress.  Very strong candidate.

2. Huckabee - Would likely govern as a moderate and has executive level experience.  Might work effectively with Congress like Reagan did (by pitting the public against them).

3. Bush - Dull, colorless, and about as exciting as watching a turtle sleep, but he would still probably make an okay President.  Has executive level experience.  I don't know how well he would work with the Tea Party nuts in Congress.

4. Rubio - Inexperienced and no executive level experience.  Try again in 8-12 years when you have a record of achievements to run on and some experience under your belt (especially executive level experience).  First term Senators running for President are annoying (see current White House occupant for fine example).

5. Paul - Inexperienced and no executive level experience.  Try again in 8-12 years when you have a record of achievements to run on and some experience under your belt (especially executive level experience).  First term Senators running for President are annoying (see current White House occupant for fine example).

6. Cruz - Inexperienced and no executive level experience.  Try again in 8-12 years when you have a record of achievements to run on and some experience under your belt (especially executive level experience).  First term Senators running for President are annoying (see current White House occupant for fine example).

7. Carson - Typical political novice with the attitude of: "How hard could this be?"  Congress chews up and spits out people like this (see current White House occupant for fine example), as do other world leaders like Putin, who are NOT political novices.  Clownish sideshow.  Wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is behind this simulation of a Presidential campaign because she wants an easy opponent in the general election.

8. Trump - Typical political novice with the attitude of: "How hard could this be?"  Congress chews up and spits out people like this (see current White House occupant for fine example), as do other world leaders like Putin, who are NOT political novices.  Clownish sideshow.  Wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is behind this simulation of a Presidential campaign because she wants an easy opponent in the general election.

MediumTex wrote: "Bush - about as exciting as watching a turtle sleep"

I lol'ed at this one. This would be good for a bumper sticker. Also I appreciate your concise executive summary of candidates. Keeps me from having to read up on them myself. I'll just take your word for it

MediumTex wrote: 8. Trump - Typical political novice with the attitude of: "How hard could this be?"  Congress chews up and spits out people like this (see current White House occupant for fine example), as do other world leaders like Putin, who are NOT political novices.  Clownish sideshow.  Wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is behind this simulation of a Presidential campaign because she wants an easy opponent in the general election.

Well said, except for Trump.  He's not a novice.  He's been campaigning in different political parties for President since the late 90's.  What did change this time, I wonder?

Too bad voters don't think like you do or we'd elect Kasich.  He was the first non-Trump candidate in the debate that I immediately liked.

What is your analysis of Santorum, Pataki, Graham and Webb?

MachineGhost wrote:

MediumTex wrote: 8. Trump - Typical political novice with the attitude of: "How hard could this be?"  Congress chews up and spits out people like this (see current White House occupant for fine example), as do other world leaders like Putin, who are NOT political novices.  Clownish sideshow.  Wouldn't be surprised if Hillary is behind this simulation of a Presidential campaign because she wants an easy opponent in the general election.

Well said, except for Trump.  He's not a novice.  He's been campaigning in different political parties for President since the late 90's.  What did change this time, I wonder?

Too bad voters don't think like you do or we'd elect Kasich.  He was the first non-Trump candidate in the debate that I immediately liked.

What is your analysis of Santorum, Pataki, Graham and Webb?

I'll answer on those 4.

Santorum - Probably the most anti-liberty politician in the bunch.
Pataki - Say What? Didn't even know he was running. Who is he any way?
Graham - Neoconservative warmonger of the worse possible kind.
Webb - Not a Republican. Was running as a democrat but dropped out. Would have cast my first democrat vote since Jimmy Carter if any of the above were the Republican nominee (or also Rubio, Fiorina, or Christie).

In other words, MT, are you saying that we seem doomed to repeat recent mistakes?

That would argue for Hilary Clinton then.  Ugh.