Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

I think Ron Paul is the most moral and sensible candidate we've had in a very long time. He is the only man I've heard put forth a realistic plan to get us out of debt. His foreign policy is reasonable, if not practical. Unfortunately, we're dealing with muslims. Appeasement has never worked in the past, it won't work now.

Other then his "Highway to Nowhere" and hid grovelious pandering to the domestic mexicans, I kind of like Perry, just not for president.

Sadly I'll probably just vote for obama. I hate doing it, but at this time it seems the most logical solution.

I'm from Texas, I like Perry just fine. I think he lacks the character and courage to be president though.

Somehow I find myself not surprised.

Ron Paul sounds sensible on the surface. Then you dig a little deeper and you start to wonder. Then you dig a little deeper and you realize that some of the things he is super libertarian about are really kinda out there.

But I think he should be given more credit than the pundits will give him.

that his is from texas? or he likes perry?

Perry.

Rick Perry lacks more than character and courage.

Although I fully supported Obama in 2008, I've been a bit disappointed by his tenure thus far. Granted, the Republican-biased House of Representatives has handcuffed much of Obama's agenda since 2010.

That said, the GOP has failed to produce a viable candidate that I believe would both do a better job than Obama and is feasibly electable.

The only two candidates in the GOP field that represent possible improvement over Obama are Ron Paul and John Huntsman. Unfortunately, since the GOP voter-base is littered with morons and extremists, neither of these men seem to have a legitimate chance to win the party nomination.

Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich are all ill-equipped to be President. Perry just seems ... slow, like he shotgunned a few too many beers in college, or was dropped on his head a few times as a child. Bachmann is just plain stupid. Santorum is genuine, but badly misguided, and doesn't represent Americans in general at all. Gingrich is just a blow-hard who lacks morals, dignity, grace, and he seems like his head is in the clouds most of the time.

I think Mitt Romney could be a decent President, but if given the choice between him and Obama, I view Romney as "Obama lite", and I'd just rather have the full-strength version.

It's funny to see how well-liked Ron Paul is in this thread. He's not getting much respect in the media, and that doesn't help his cause. But he's also not getting much support in the published polls. If you all want to see Ron Paul have a fighting chance, you're going to need to get out there and stump for him and make your voices heard.

This this this this this. I have such respect for Jon Huntsman after doing some research and seeing how qualified he is as a presidential candidate that I honestly wish he would get the republican nomination so I could vote for him, even with myself being "liberal".

I honestly wonder how we don't get along sometimes Elana.

I'm going to exercise my right to not vote because none of the candidates seem "qualified" for the position.

I disapprove of this stance. I hear it a lot.
Problem is, if you don't vote, and a lot of people say "I ain't voting because I don't like the choices", then you (collectively) end up perpetuating the problem of having crappy candidates in the future.

The elderly WILL vote. The extremists WILL vote.

If you sit on your thumb at home, the candidates will continue to know that your potential vote isn't worth fighting for. And thus, you will continue, in the future, to get candidates that you don't like.

Get your *** to the polling place and cast a vote for someone, even if it's for yourself.

No. I'm not going to vote for a person to represent me in which I have zero confidence in. Especially knowing their history.
I'd much rather only vote for house reps and senators. as for presidential candidates I wouldn't even vote for myself just because it would be a waste of time and effort

So if you vote for yourself you will then in turn have better candidates to vote for in the future? I fail to see how any of your argument makes any sense at all. Just because someone works for your vote doesn't make them a better candidate.

Ron Paul ftw

Don't you just sink to the level of those you would normally ridicule when you make statements like this? This is how Rush Limbaugh speaks isn't it?

I already have read about your dislike for rural, religious types but what was the reason for driving a wedge between age groups? Seems odd seeing as how one of the acceptable candidates in your eyes is pretty much an elderly extremist in Ron Paul. What other large swaths of the populace do you find yourself superior to?

In regards to the OP, I'm for Ron Paul despite my various handicaps.

I would Like Ron paul to win republican candidacy, Rick perry, seems like hes even more HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE then george bush lol, Herman Cain, I think said we should go to war with china or something.....idr

I'm going to just move to another country. Sounds like the best option to me. >.>

But how will you share your pizza with me then?

Huntsman is the only non-HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE person in the running on the Republican end.

Ron Paul has good and bad ideas, and all of them are too far out to actually make it past House or Senate. He'd spend four years sitting at his desk trading vetos and filibusters with the 524 special interest funded roadblocks we call congress. He's just too unyielding on too many controversial stances to succeed, which is politically HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE if you're trying to change anything.

The rest are just potato heads and establishment stooges.

Currently, of the ones the media deems remotely capable of getting the Republican nomination, I prefer none of the above.

Pity about Huntsman.

If you believe debt is the problem you have been manipulated by the media.

Debt is the problem if you revamp the monetary policy which is Ron Paul's first plan of action. But yes, as of right now, debt is actually keeping America alive(as silly as it sounds). But in the long run, it's a horrible horrible idea. That's why it needs to change.

Let's be realistic for a moment here.

It's painfully obvious that the 2012 presidential race will be Obama vs. Romney.

It's a shame that Ron Paul won't get the nomination and on top of that he has stated that he has no intention on running as a 3rd party candidate. Some pundits and political commentators alike have pointed out the language he used means he still might, but highly unlikely.

My support for Obama has declined drastically in the past few months. I really don't want to have to vote for him again.

On the other hand Romney is the GOP version of John Kerry in the 2004 election. Lots of people will vote for him, but chances are the incumbent will win, as history tells us.

So the real question is are there any good 3rd party candidates?

Even if there are, they won't win. Proof of that is the list of the people running.

Most are people no one has heard of on a national level.

Then there's Roseanne or The Naked Cowboy.

So unless some major event occurs, and I mean something major, all signs point to 4 more years of Obama.

It's really quite dismal if you ask me, but that's how American politics work. So I really don't blame the people who don't vote in this election. It's pretty much set in stone.

The 2016 is the one to look forward too. (Unless the world ends on Dec. 21 2012)

Have you ever seen any movie ever where there some kind of world ending cataclysm?! There is ALWAYS a black guy as a president in these movies.



a.)Obama get re-elected, BAM 12/21/12
b.)he doesn't, BAM Zombie Jesus
c.)you take the blue pill and wake up to find out it's all already happened and we're hidden away in the matrix

Technically, even if he somehow manages to lose, he will still be in office until January 2013.
So this can't be good, maybe the 2012 theories were correct!
OH NO! RUN! AHHHH!

Huntsman and Paul are the only candidates that don't make me roll my eyes. Usually I detest people who label candidates 'flip floppers' (because it often happens that they're mad someone changed their stance on a social issue or they didn't stubbornly ignore new evidence that contradicted their previous belief) but Romney has really upped the ante on that term. If it weren't for what at least seems to be his pandering to the extreme right Romney might not have been so bad. As it stands I can't say what policies he might get behind so I couldn't have any confidence in voting for him. Cain, Bachman, and Perry are all a special mixture of crazy and HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE and Newt...well I usually don't like to let someone's personal life affect my professional opinion of them, but he's really something else.

The Republican party as a whole seems to have slipped off the edge of reality sometime in the past decade. If I had to guess I would say Rupert Murdock was the primary cause, but at this point I'm just waiting for the 2 party system to splinter like you see in many European nations. Perhaps the country can get back on track if we can somehow break up this ridiculous game of Red VS Blue and get candidates that actually represent the will of the people.

How do people consistently overlook that the impeachment was not about having sex with an intern. It was about PERJURY! Lying under oath! Our President can surely be held to the standard of telling the truth when he has sworn/affirmed to do so!
Remember, he was disbarred later by a judge, so there is no doubt that he did commit perjury.

Aside from that, Herman Cain. Listened to his radio show quite a bit. Have always liked his world view.

I will likely be voting for Obama, but we'll see who else ends up on GOP side. I do like Ron Paul, but you can't fix everything by trying to wipe out vast swaths of the government. I know that there's lots of government problems, but I don't think removing entire massive sections is the best way to fix it.

Cain isn't horrible, but he hasn't done his homework. He hasn't kept on current affairs, and that's important. Also, I generally distrust most CEOs, because of the money factors.

Romney isn't too bad. He's more career politics w/ money than I'd like, but he's not far off. Romney vs. Obama would be a difficult choice for me.

I think people forget there is no such thing as a perfect candidate - even if you got yourself elected, there will be times when your own opinions will, in fact, be the wrong course to take the country. That's why I won't punt on Romney because of being Mormon, or Obama for allowing more TSA type crap than I'd like. Overall, I think both are doing reasonably well.

Obama, cause at least with him I know what I am getting, even if it isn't impressive.

I haven't forgotten it was about the perjury - but I understand why he did it. Much like any spouse is likely to do, he lied to save his butt, and believed he could get the country past this quite unimportant thing. Yes, it was dumb, but there is a difference between his lie on the Lewinsky stuff vs. lying about secret government criminal courts. Aside from looking stupid, Clinton didn't actually do anything that caused anyone real harm.