Republican Candiates for 2012 -Have they lost their bloody minds?

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, first off, though I lean mostly towards the Republican side of things. That is, I feel that government should be 'right sized', that not every problem is cured by spending more money, that we shouldn't rely OVERMUCH on regulation for every facet of life. 

I do have a few problems with the GOP though. I'm Pro-Choice rather than Pro-Life, I think Science isn't evil and I think that the religious right would roll us all the way back to the stone age if they could.

I do think between lobbyists and the religious conservatives, the party leadership has sold/prostituted themselves to keep a handle on the steering wheel of the party. The Tea Party movement is simply the latest way they worked to keep everything under their control.

Then I looked at the canidates.. and I keep hearing Stewie Griffing from Family Guy. (ie..WHAT THE HELL MAN?!)

I mean look at some of our choices...

Michelle Bachman
- Supports the teaching of creationism in Public Schools (but on the twist side..she's for anti-Bullying measures)
-Would like to eliminate the Minimum Wage
-Opposes the EPA (but supports Domestic drilling and alternate power development)
-Phasing out Social Security/Medicare (without proposing an alternative)
-Against Reagan style amnesty  for immigration
-Doesn't think the US should participate in events like the G-20 summit and insists that the US shoulnd't be part of of a global economy (though I fail to see how we can avoid it)

Herman Cain
+ Doesn't believe we should have bailed out Wall street
-Opposed the raising of the debt ceiling.
-Thinks we should go back on the gold standard
-Wants to shift taxes to a national sales tax standard (his 9/9/9 signature quote, 9% on individuals, sales and businesses)
-Opposes welfare programs (but I haven't found anything definitive on what he'd do.. is he against them.. or does he more)
-Has serious issues with Islam, lots of classes over the building of Mosques and has stated several times a concern about a plan to institute Sharia Law within the US
-Opposes Diplomatic negotiation with North Korea
-Climate Change denial
-Dislikes the Occupy Movement (but given his long corporate work that should be expected)
-Wants to pass an amendment denying Native Born children citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.
-Openly friendly with the Koch Brothers.

Rick Perry
-Wants to eliminate the Departments of Education, Energy and Commerce (the infamous debate Gaff)
+Opposes a border 'fence' between the US and Mexico and seems to have a more realistic outlook than most of the canidates concerning immigrant issues.. (though I haven't' found any concrete suggestions of what to do, he opposed Arizona's anti-immigrant law)
-Climate change sceptic (but has signed into law requiring oil franking companies to disclose what chemicals they use)
~supports a State level Heathcare system, says the federal government should work on stabilizing the social security system
+Has stated that US has greatly underestimated China's modernazation
-Supports a flat tax rate (of current level or 20%)

Rick Santorum
-Tried to put the 'Santorum amendment into the No Child Left Behind bill to promote teaching intelligent design
+ has pushed (or tried to) push through anti-puppy mill legistaltion
~Seems to be comfortable with current immigration laws
~Has stated that more attention should be given to the Sarin and Mustard Gas munitions that weren't found in Iraq (I agree but there hasn't been enough evidence to show how MUCH was ever actually made/built, so I'm not too sure how big a threat this actually is)
-Anti-abortion (limited or illegal depending on the circumstances)

Now I'm not a yellow dog republican (or democrat) and mostly have voted on the person rather than a party but I would like someone that strikes me as more rational than some of the choices being present.

I think that the interests of the people aren't reflect in one party or the other, but somewhere in the middle. Through reasoned discussion and debate the interests of the people are best served.Not in the rigid service to one platform, corporate sponsor or personal outlook.

The Late Senator Jesse Helms didn't always have the same views as I. In some areas I thought he was hide bound and old fashion but I voted him twice growing up. Why? Because he considered what was best for the state of North Carolina. This was the man who stood beside Bono of U2 and called for the forgiveness of debts that countries like Brazil and such. Not something I would have expected of him But he presented very good reasons why to do it. And it was something the party leadership would have never gone with. (I speak of the folks back in NC, some of whom I've met.. they'd never forgive a dime or a point of interest owed THEM. Ever.)

Basically I'm tired of voting for the lesser evil and watching BOTH parties waste money, time, and good will with people who aren't leaders.

I want STATESMEN and LEADERS, men and women with spine and moral courage, not party yes-men, special interest sell outs or folks looking to make a buck for their cronies.

You should approach public office with more concern for the PEOPLE and not what you can get out of it. Too many politicians look for ways to make themselves and people who backed them.

[Missy]

I agree with you most strongly, the mightiest system will fail should the men upholding it be found weak.

However I actually agree with Cain on NK. I honestly don't think we can negotiate with the Kims, it just won't happen, their behavior seems to indicate they have no interest in-as-much whatsoever.

[Iniquitous]

Don’t you just love our choices for this upcoming election? I mean, I am positively giddy with excitement. (Seriously a sarcasm font would be wonderful right now).

I think it is sad when people reach a point where they feel it is just pointless to vote - which is where I currently am right now - because nothing will ever change. It doesn’t matter who we put into office, it will be a repeat of the previous four years. Why? Because nothing is going to change unless every single politician and lobbyist in D.C. is removed and we start over. Of course, we start over right now and the country wouldn’t last ten years (being generous there) because too many people want to be taken care of. The something for nothing idea.

I like none of the runners and wouldn’t be able to choose who was the lesser evil if someone put a gun to my head and told me to choose. Well, alright - Bachman would be right out. The woman… yeah, not going there.

Anyway! I know everyone says vote to make sure your voice is heard (though I stopped believing in that 3 yrs and some change ago) but I do not think I will vote next year. Not unless they give me the ability to vote against whoever is running. I’d be more inclined to write in Cthulhu for president. At least we’d know exactly what we were getting then.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree with you most strongly, the mightiest system will fail should the men upholding it be found weak.

However I actually agree with Cain on NK. I honestly don't think we can negotiate with the Kims, it just won't happen, their behavior seems to indicate they have no interest in-as-much whatsoever.

With what?

Right now, assuming we don't give China major concessions (like giving up supporting Taiwan) we don't have the power to do it. The military is overtaxed and has been for years. Add in the fact that 8 years of Bush 'right sizings' and the continuing practice under President Obama has weakened the military in ways that will hurt us for years to come.

Simply put. We do not have the manpower to fight a coventional war with North Korea and meet our obligations elsewhere. Not possible. Add in the fact that the civilian cost in South Korea would be truly terrifying. Artillery strikes across the DMZ will be among the first actions of any military action. And given that those batteries have had population centers in their sights for decades.. it will be very ugly.

[RubySlippers]

I like Caine he is right on citizenship at least require one parent be a citizen to be a citizen at birth.

Anyway he is the best candidate to choose if Obama is to have a chance to get re-elected the 999 plan will kill the poor and working classes with brutal tax increases that alone would like tip the scale in Obama's favor even if it has no chance of passage in the Congress.

As for North Korea we don't need conventional options ever consider we have nuclear options to counter the only issue is would China bother to intervene if they struck first, I think we need a clear they attack we WILL GO nuclear. That might get China on our side. They could annex it they need farm land and the people there would be far better off under Chinese rule.

[Missy]

I think it is sad when people reach a point where they feel it is just pointless to vote - which is where I currently am right now - because nothing will ever change. It doesn’t matter who we put into office, it will be a repeat of the previous four years. Why? Because nothing is going to change unless every single politician and lobbyist in D.C. is removed and we start over. Of course, we start over right now and the country wouldn’t last ten years (being generous there) because too many people want to be taken care of. The something for nothing idea.

My mum put it rather well "it takes 'u' and 'i' to make unity.

We have to have a change before long or well will fall. No-one cares about America anymore, everyone just cares about themselves.

I like none of the runners and wouldn’t be able to choose who was the lesser evil if someone put a gun to my head and told me to choose. Well, alright - Bachman would be right out. The woman… yeah, not going there.

[/size][/font][/center]

Bachman should be out because she's an idiot. Which is true of a good deal of male politicians as well. I would vote for a female politician, I just don't know any who aren't as stupid or unethical as most of the male ones I know.

Really you just have to be able to outwit the average joe or jane to make it into office, make us believe that you actually care just long enough to get our votes and then you can soak up our tax dollars and put forth whatever agenda you really have for the country. Which agenda is usually more self-serving than anything.

Ultimately I don't care who I vote for. Gender and colour have nothing to do with intelligence and ethics and we will most assuredly suffer if we try to put a person into office on a basis of his or her gender or ethnicity.

[Missy]

With what?

That the politicians we have aren't really good options, most of them being either stupid, unethical, corrupt or all of these and because of this we are ultimately heading towards our destruction.

Right now, assuming we don't give China major concessions (like giving up supporting Taiwan) we don't have the power to do it. The military is overtaxed and has been for years. Add in the fact that 8 years of Bush 'right sizings' and the continuing practice under President Obama has weakened the military in ways that will hurt us for years to come.

I agree it has been foolish to downsize the military, I've studied WWII a bit and I've heard more lately that we kind of got lucky with Japan. Things could have turned out much worse. Yet our politicians seem to learn nothing. Right before the the second war we were downsizing our military after the first. Will we be similarly unprepared for the third??

[/quote]Simply put. We do not have the manpower to fight a coventional war with North Korea and meet our obligations elsewhere. Not possible. Add in the fact that the civilian cost in South Korea would be truly terrifying. Artillery strikes across the DMZ will be among the first actions of any military action. And given that those batteries have had population centers in their sights for decades.. it will be very ugly.
[/quote]

If you can find a way to effect a diplomatic solution then I think I would have to shake your hand, but do you honestly think the Kims would keep their deal after we were gone?

[Missy]

I like Caine he is right on citizenship at least require one parent be a citizen to be a citizen at birth.

Maybe, some children grow up in America and can be every bit the America, often better, than the ones born of other natural born citizens. Honestly the immigration system is seriously fucked up and there is no simple solution.

As for North Korea we don't need conventional options ever consider we have nuclear options to counter the only issue is would China bother to intervene if they struck first, I think we need a clear they attack we WILL GO nuclear. That might get China on our side. They could annex it they need farm land and the people there would be far better off under Chinese rule.

That would go against the entire point of the trident program. Tridents are and should remain weapons of mass deterrence. If we start throwing them around again there's no telling what might happen. Sure, maybe arrange for a trident to be seen in the Sea of Korea or blow up something, big but sub-nuclear, in the Sea of Korea to send a message to Kim, but honestly using them is a bad idea.

[Iniquitous]

I am not sure what is harder for me to wrap my mind around - the want for the US to use weapons of mass destruction or the fact that someone thinks it is perfectly ok for one country to swoop in and utterly eradicate another country’s culture, language, history, etc for farmland and because they think the people in said country would be better off.

On the matter of using weapons of mass destruction - I think it is pretty easy to see how that would escalate far out of control and become a situation we would not want to have to deal with.

On the matter of China annexing another country. Yeah, I still can’t wrap my mind around that. Especially since the reasons given are “They (China) needs the farm land” - what about the North Korean people? You want them to give up their land to foreign invaders. How are they suppose to live? Or ‘The people (North Korean) would be far better off under Chinese rule” Really? You know this for a fact? I am of the belief that the systematic destruction of a sovereign country’s language, culture and history (no matter how tyrannical the country is) is something we should be against. Do you think China would march in, take over and then tell the people that they could keep what makes them North Korean? I highly doubt it.

[Callie Del Noire]

Maybe, some children grow up in America and can be every bit the America, often better, than the ones born of other natural born citizens. Honestly the immigration system is seriously fucked up and there is no simple solution.

That would go against the entire point of the trident program. Tridents are and should remain weapons of mass deterrence. If we start throwing them around again there's no telling what might happen. Sure, maybe arrange for a trident to be seen in the Sea of Korea or blow up something, big but sub-nuclear, in the Sea of Korea to send a message to Kim, but honestly using them is a bad idea.

Well there is this thing.. it's called diplomacy and alliance building. The big 3 financial centers of Asia all have common cause to worry about the North Koreans. (China, Japan and South Korea) China, by sheer weight of being the LARGEST single client of what the North Korean government calls industry (50%  of all exports ,according to the world fact book as well as of 40% of all their imports) has more leverage than anyone else in the wold. Japan has a long running, we're talking CENTURIES, ethnic and cultural conflict with the Korean peninsula (They used to kidnap Korean metal smiths because they made better bronze; and we all know what the Kim family has done with Japanese citizens over the decades)

This isn't a problem that can be completely addressed by dealing with the North Korean government simply by sitting down. Our sanctions are largely ineffective without the Chinese and to help the North Korean people we need to help the South Koreans with their plans to help consolidate and rebuild the North when it collapses. Not if. When. Sooner or later, it will fold. China will not support their antics for ever, and their economic model has already showed the sand under it's foundation. The famines of the 1990s had between 900,000 to 3.5 MILLION depending on which sources you refer to.

All it takes a look at a night time orbital shot of the Korean peninsula to show the disparity in development



Add in the MANY issues coming out of North Korea, such as diplomatic drug smuggling, human trafficking, one of the main culprits of Superbills (there is more than a little evidence that the North Korean either prints counterfeit bills or is a major force in the laundering of them) There is many reasons to add other regional groups like Australia, Malasia, and possible growing regions like the Philippines.

Thing is.. to build a group like this takes a consensus within the US first. We have to take steps to build a structure that won't just sanction them but be ready to step in and help the country when it falls apart. 

Quick media bite results aren't going to happy.

In fact, it could take two terms of a leader to do it.

And sadly the men and women stepping up on either sides of the party divide make me dubious as to what will come out out things.

So, odds are that North Korea will last till Kim Il finally taps off to whatever hell waits for a mad man like him. I don't give whoever follows him high odds in keeping things stable, son or not, and when things fall apart there will be bodies in the streets, burning buildings and some fallout beyond their borders

I see folks running across the borders (particularly China), shelling of South Korea and possibly even foolish things like shots at Japan.

[Callie Del Noire]

I like Caine he is right on citizenship at least require one parent be a citizen to be a citizen at birth.

Anyway he is the best candidate to choose if Obama is to have a chance to get re-elected the 999 plan will kill the poor and working classes with brutal tax increases that alone would like tip the scale in Obama's favor even if it has no chance of passage in the Congress.

As for North Korea we don't need conventional options ever consider we have nuclear options to counter the only issue is would China bother to intervene if they struck first, I think we need a clear they attack we WILL GO nuclear. That might get China on our side. They could annex it they need farm land and the people there would be far better off under Chinese rule.

So let's see.. that would eliminate a lot of folks from the franchise. The arch-conservatives would be happy. No, disenfranchising children because we're too lazy isn't the way to go. Reform is needed. First off we need to give the INS and other law enforcement teeth to go after the people who really profit on illegal immigration. Businesses like Wal-Mart, American Apparel, Swift & Co. and others who profit off it. Fines are mere hand slaps, lobbyists have curtailed investigations and regulatory manpower to the enforce standing laws.

if we cant' enforce the standing laws as are, what makes you think we can enforce more draconian ones?


As for the idea of giving away North Korea to China, we could make the same arguement about giving Maine and possibly other northern states to Canada. (and hopefully it would be as likely to be followed).

We cannot give away another country. It didn't work when Chamberlain gave away Poland, Czechoslovakia and other bits of eastern Europe to the Germans and Russians and it won't do it now.

Nuclear weaponry is a hollow threat. Don't even begin to think that it would be believed. Even if they don't have a working nuke, think about this. They have the very toxic material to make one. The North Korean leadership would quite happily poison Japan, South Korea and the US in retaliation quite happily.  While the US might be a bit harder to reach the other two are within reach of their missiles already.

[Missy]

I am not sure what is harder for me to wrap my mind around - the want for the US to use weapons of mass destruction or the fact that someone thinks it is perfectly ok for one country to swoop in and utterly eradicate another country’s culture, language, history, etc for farmland and because they think the people in said country would be better off.

On the matter of using weapons of mass destruction - I think it is pretty easy to see how that would escalate far out of control and become a situation we would not want to have to deal with.

On the matter of China annexing another country. Yeah, I still can’t wrap my mind around that. Especially since the reasons given are “They (China) needs the farm land” - what about the North Korean people? You want them to give up their land to foreign invaders. How are they suppose to live? Or ‘The people (North Korean) would be far better off under Chinese rule” Really? You know this for a fact? I am of the belief that the systematic destruction of a sovereign country’s language, culture and history (no matter how tyrannical the country is) is something we should be against. Do you think China would march in, take over and then tell the people that they could keep what makes them North Korean? I highly doubt it.

Tibet.

As far as governance goes, well, it's not hard to find a less inept government than that of North Korea. So actually with a few exceptions anybody would be better for the North Koreans citizens than the Kim regime. That said I would protest and petition to impeach any politician who even suggested allowing China to annex North Korea. If it went to war about it, I would like to think I would be where the military told me to be. If North Korea collapses then it should be properly reunified with South Korea, they share a common culture on many points and it wouldn't take long for the North Koreans to realize what they would have gained, or what they were missing before. It's not unlike East and West Germany of once upon a time.

[RubySlippers]

I am not sure what is harder for me to wrap my mind around - the want for the US to use weapons of mass destruction or the fact that someone thinks it is perfectly ok for one country to swoop in and utterly eradicate another country’s culture, language, history, etc for farmland and because they think the people in said country would be better off.

On the matter of using weapons of mass destruction - I think it is pretty easy to see how that would escalate far out of control and become a situation we would not want to have to deal with.

On the matter of China annexing another country. Yeah, I still can’t wrap my mind around that. Especially since the reasons given are “They (China) needs the farm land” - what about the North Korean people? You want them to give up their land to foreign invaders. How are they suppose to live? Or ‘The people (North Korean) would be far better off under Chinese rule” Really? You know this for a fact? I am of the belief that the systematic destruction of a sovereign country’s language, culture and history (no matter how tyrannical the country is) is something we should be against. Do you think China would march in, take over and then tell the people that they could keep what makes them North Korean? I highly doubt it.

Tactical nukes as in against military targets its perfectly acceptable under the acceptable military practices of war, instead of risking many bombers or troops you critically disable the enemy of say half their military capability in one fell swoop. With the understanding with them and the Chinese it would be the response against any attack in force to the south of the DMZ plus we are still at war with them we never signed a treaty to end the war.

I would just make it our standing policy, place such weapons into the region is sufficient numbers to do the job and develop new and better tactical options. Then use that to get China to do what they have to in North Korea. And seeing the common citizen in North Korea has virtually no rights and are under the jackboot China is likely better in the long run overseeing the nation. And I'd rather have them take out North Korea by force than we doing it.

We invaded Iraq people for the simple reason to eliminate a dictator and one we put into power for no real reason at the time, North Korea in many ways is worse. I would never suggest our leaders say this openly that is what back channels are for.

But we need to give them a clear message if North Korea attacks South Korea we will have not choice by to counter superior forces immediately with a nuclear response in the southern half of the nation and at key targets in the North to break the ability to wage war. Or you can add to the threat by saying if the attack to the South China will invade in force conventionally with the US to not then require a nuclear response of any size, maybe a limited one on agreed upon plan of action. What is the Security Council going to do to us in either case we have a Veto Override we can do what we want if China is on board its two seats and again we can veto at will.

As for the issue all of the candidates have good points and bad points but the issue is can they beat Obama or not, I don't see any that have much promise there when voters have to choose.

[Callie Del Noire]

Tactical nukes as in against military targets its perfectly acceptable under the acceptable military practices of war, instead of risking many bombers or troops you critically disable the enemy of say half their military capability in one fell swoop. With the understanding with them and the Chinese it would be the response against any attack in force to the south of the DMZ plus we are still at war with them we never signed a treaty to end the war.

I would just make it our standing policy, place such weapons into the region is sufficient numbers to do the job and develop new and better tactical options. Then use that to get China to do what they have to in North Korea. And seeing the common citizen in North Korea has virtually no rights and are under the jackboot China is likely better in the long run overseeing the nation. And I'd rather have them take out North Korea by force than we doing it.

We invaded Iraq people for the simple reason to eliminate a dictator and one we put into power for no real reason at the time, North Korea in many ways is worse. I would never suggest our leaders say this openly that is what back channels are for.

But we need to give them a clear message if North Korea attacks South Korea we will have not choice by to counter superior forces immediately with a nuclear response in the southern half of the nation and at key targets in the North to break the ability to wage war. Or you can add to the threat by saying if the attack to the South China will invade in force conventionally with the US to not then require a nuclear response of any size, maybe a limited one on agreed upon plan of action. What is the Security Council going to do to us in either case we have a Veto Override we can do what we want if China is on board its two seats and again we can veto at will.

As for the issue all of the candidates have good points and bad points but the issue is can they beat Obama or not, I don't see any that have much promise there when voters have to choose.

You would nuke a third world power because we've been too lazy to do things in a realistic manner and our last president had a hard on for a dictator who we could have controlled more easily? For the simple reason that said dictator put a contract out on his dad and he wanted to prove he was could do what dear old dad couldn't?

Iran was a mistake. It was a stablizing element in the Gulf. Yes, Saddam killed his own people, perhaps he sponsored acts of terror but we had him by the short ones and he was a HELL of a lot more rational than Kim Il. How many Iranian nations have been killed in feuds, ethnic violence and terrorist acts that were conducted or sponsored by Iraq?

It has been estimated that it would take ten years to build Iran into a stable government. Any less and the chances of civil war (most likely fomented by an unnamed government to their immediate east) is likely to occur. The estimated death count? Somewhere between two and six hundred thousand in two years. We shouldn't have gone in at that time, that would have allowed us to focus on the taliban. You know.. the folks who controlled Afghanistan and were worming into the Pakistani political structure. You know the nation who has nukes?

Right now, thanks in large part to folks like Donald Rumbsfeld, we don't have the manpower and equipment to match our own order of battle. We couldn't take North Korean on conventionally in a head to head fight. Haven't had the manpower since the mid-Clinton era.

And the ONLY time we ever used the Bomb was in a war. I don't see outright use of a nuke by anyone as a rational measure. 

As for giving Korea to China, I think the people of Tibet would argue that your idea isn't in the best the North Korean's best interests.

[Hemingway]

I'm stuck on the part about Michelle Bachmann not wanting the US to be part of the global economy - not that there aren't a thousand other reasons she is not fit for public office. What is it she plans, exactly? What sort of alternate reality does she inhabit?

[itsbeenfun2000]

Getting back on subject. The Republicans haven't lost their minds, they have lost their moderates. To get elected in the primary you have to appease the people who will vote in the primary. The moderate Republican had his party hijacked long ago and simply have moved on. We didn't leave the party it left us so to speak.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm stuck on the part about Michelle Bachmann not wanting the US to be part of the global economy - not that there aren't a thousand other reasons she is not fit for public office. What is it she plans, exactly? What sort of alternate reality does she inhabit?

I think she said something along the lines of she didn't see any reason we should participate in market plannning with rivals and lesser economies and agree to do what they say.

Annnnndd.. after tonight's debate I'm LESS impressed with most of the candidates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/12/gop-candidates-to-debate-foreign-policy-in-south-carolina/

-Romney going with old school fear mongering 'If Obama gets re-elected, Iran will get the bomb'
-Perry 'Foreign aid will start at $0 in a Perry Whitehouse. Pakistan will be told 'they don't deserve our foreign aid' and he still wants to axe out regulatory agencies like the Departments of Energy, Commerce and Education (another fine Koch sponsored candidate?)

-Huntsman who I thought was a bit rational wants to pull out of Afganistan, leaving the job undone.. (again)

-Cain and Bauchman are for 'enhanced interrogations'

All in all, it's looking to be a very nasty primary season.

[Oniya]

What the heck is an 'enhanced interrogation'?

[Callie Del Noire]

What the heck is an 'enhanced interrogation'?

Waterboarding, Sleep Deprivation, Prisoner restraint (ie.. sittign them in painful positions for hours on end) and so forth.

[Oniya]

That's what I suspected was afraid of...

[Callie Del Noire]

That's what I suspected was afraid of...

I always find it interesting that the miltary vets who run, Bush aside, dislike it and distrust the results. Of course soldiers are irrelevant relics of an old outlook, to paraphrase Joe Quesada.

I find myself a bit worried that the most rational sounding man so far, to me, is a man I'd have run over rather than elect 20 years ago. I know that Newt's facade is just that. I've seen him in action.

[HairyHeretic]

Torture someone long enough, I suspect they'll admit to anything you want them to in order to get you to stop. Of course, saying you're in favour of torture in a tv debate might give people the wrong idea about you.

[Capone]

Torture someone long enough, I suspect they'll admit to anything you want them to in order to get you to stop. Of course, saying you're in favour of torture in a tv debate might give people the wrong idea about you.

This is the big problem with torture. In some ways, it's the most reliable way to get information, even if it is inhuman. Unfortunately, push someone too far, and they'll lie. There aren't a lot of reliable ways to get the actual truth out of someone.

It's been a while since I kept up with the news, and usually I use BBC to do so, but if I were to choose any candidate for the Republicans, it would probably be Jon Huntsman. I like a lot of the man's policies, and I think having worked under Obama's administration puts points in his favor. In addition, one of the reasons a lot of people voted Obama was so we could have someone that could..."restore" our foreign relations, so to speak. Considering Jon Hunstman has that experience with China already, I'd look at that as a plus.

In truth, though, I'm not sure I have faith in the next election. We'd need a President willing to make some big changes in order to get the economy going again, and some of those may seem harmful at first (if you want to force companies to manufacture in America as opposed to foreign countries, for example, you'll probably end up having to pay more for your products...and when everyone is having economic hardship, that will seem like a bad idea at first). Plus, anyone that is typically worth their salt ends up being shouted down and ignored by the mainstream media. I guarantee you whoever is nominated for the Republican Presidency, they'll be some of the worst Right Wing shlock imaginable.

[Zakharra]

In truth, though, I'm not sure I have faith in the next election. We'd need a President willing to make some big changes in order to get the economy going again, and some of those may seem harmful at first (if you want to force companies to manufacture in America as opposed to foreign countries, for example, you'll probably end up having to pay more for your products...and when everyone is having economic hardship, that will seem like a bad idea at first). Plus, anyone that is typically worth their salt ends up being shouted down and ignored by the mainstream media. I guarantee you whoever is nominated for the Republican Presidency, they'll be some of the worst Right Wing shlock imaginable.

Forcing companies to make products in the US isn't necessarily the best thing if it ends up costing more for people to buy it. Especially if there are cheaper versions of the item for sale that are as good. You need to give them incentive to begin manufacturing products here in the US again.

[Missy]

Forcing companies to make products in the US isn't necessarily the best thing if it ends up costing more for people to buy it. Especially if there are cheaper versions of the item for sale that are as good. You need to give them incentive to begin manufacturing products here in the US again.

Domestically produced goods feed the economy in that it provides jobs for our citizens, thus circulating money into the economy.