The Problem With 2016 GOP Presidential Candidates

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
May 5, 2008
17,082
16,605
The Misty Mountains
It looks like another extraordinarily weak crop of GOP candidates for 2016, who if they had any redeeming qualities, as usual are throwing those out the window to appeal to their base and subvert their National appeal. This is symptomatic of the disengeniuous role they play to fit into GOP World, first saying what they really think, second altering their message to align with their base for the primaries, and thirdly, flip flopping again to regain National appeal after losing it. Bottom line, instead of just being honest and not winning National elections, they believe this dance of misdirection and dishonesty is the best way to serve themselves. It's definitely not upholding the values we supposedly hold dear,

Example 1: Although I don't believe Scott Walker has any redeeming qualities, it appears he has shifted his position several times on immigration.

Scott Walker Drawing Notice With Shifting Stances

WASHINGTON — Scott Walker was in favor of a legal pathway for illegal immigrants, then he was against it. And then he was for it again. Maybe.

On so-called Common Core national education standards? He once touted them, now wants to repeal them. On federal ethanol mandates cherished by farmers, particularly in Iowa? Once opposed to them, he now embraces them. His record of shifting stances also applies to abortion and “right to work” legislation that makes it harder for workers to unionize.
Example 2: Rand Paul on climate change: What's Rand Paul's Position on Climate Change? It Depends on the Day

Rand Paul has already taken a half-dozen different positions on climate change, all before he marked his first day officially campaigning for president.

In January, he voted yes on a Republican-sponsored resolution that “human activity contributes to climate change.” But he doesn’t want to say human activity significantly contributes, since he voted no on a Democratic resolution that same day. A year ago, the Kentucky senator was less sure of climate change science. “Anybody who's ever studied any geology knows that over periods of time, long periods of time, that the climate changes, mmkay?” he said in April 2014. “I'm not sure anybody exactly knows why.” He seemed to dispute that scientists who spend their lives studying this know what they're doing. “We have real data [for] about 100 years,” he said. “So somebody tell me what 100 years data is in an Earth that is 4.6 billion years old? My guess is that the conclusions you make from that are not conclusive.”
Example 3: I don't need to worry about Ted Cruz because his positions are so far right and extreme it does not matter what kind of shifts he decides to make if any.

Example 4: Chris Christie Veers Right On Climate Change as 2016 Approaches
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jnpy!$4g3cwk

haxrnick

macrumors 6502a
Aug 4, 2011
530
1,937
Seattle
Called politics. Happens on both sides. I joyfully await you making a thread about people on the left changing their views too for votes.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
May 5, 2008
17,082
16,605
The Misty Mountains
Called politics. Happens on both sides. I joyfully await you making a thread about people on the left changing their views too for votes.
First off as a rule Democrats don't have this issue to the extent the GOP does, my opinion. And there appears just to be one Democrat running for President, we already have ample, an excessive number of threads in existence about her. ;)
 
Last edited:

aaronvan

Suspended
Dec 21, 2011
1,349
9,287
República Cascadia
It's called not having a back bone. No one currently in the run is worth voting for, democrat or republican.
None can pass the purity test; however, Republican voters can at least choose from libertarian to Evangelical to checked-pants country-clubber.

The Democrats, however, chose nomination by coronation and what do they offer? A foreign policy "expert" who:

Voted for the 2003 Iraq War.
Was baffled by chaos in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Created an Islamist snake pit in Libya.
Saber-rattles towards Russia for no obvious purpose.
Defends the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.

And who on the domestic policy front:

Supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Publicly opposed gay marriage
Supported NAFTA.
Refuses to take a position on the TPA.

Of course, Hillary always has that hopey-changey thing going for her. :p

Looks like I'll be voting "I" again in '16, though.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,024
Criminal Mexi Midget
None can pass the purity test; however, Republican voters can at least choose from libertarian to Evangelical to checked-pants country-clubber.

The Democrats, however, chose nomination by coronation and what do they offer? A foreign policy "expert" who:

Voted for the 2003 Iraq War.
Was baffled by chaos in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Created an Islamist snake pit in Libya.
Saber-rattles towards Russia for no obvious purpose.
Defends the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.

And who on the domestic policy front:

Supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Publicly opposed gay marriage
Supported NAFTA.
Refuses to take a position on the TPA.

Of course, Hillary always has that hopey-changey thing going for her. :p

Looks like I'll be voting "I" again in '16, though.
It's on, she has that magical "D" next to her name, they will vote for her just because of it
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smith288

Meister

Suspended
Oct 10, 2013
5,455
4,265
Example 3: I don't need to worry about Ted Cruz because his positions are so far right and extreme it does not matter what kind of shifts he decides to make if any.
I didn't really look at this man before your post, but at least from his wikipedia page I could not find any extreme positions.
Except that he is part of the patriot act crowd and therefore inacceptable.
 

APlotdevice

macrumors 68040
Sep 3, 2011
3,109
3,749
I didn't really look at this man before your post, but at least from his wikipedia page I could not find any extreme positions.
Except that he is part of the patriot act crowd and therefore inacceptable.
Wikipedia isn't exactly the most reliable source of information. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: SkyBell

Herdfan

macrumors 6502
Apr 11, 2011
267
3,842
What I find interesting on the Democratic side is that they are facing what the Republicans faced the last 2 elections: Nominating someone because it was "their turn". Didn't work out well with McCain or Romney so do the Democrats think it will work out any better than Hillary.

As for the GOP field, at least Rand Paul will tell you what he thinks. It may be different from what he thought yesterday, but it won't be finessed.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
39,024
Criminal Mexi Midget
You maintain a smidgen of credibility if you acknowledged this is a characteristic of most groups especially Republicans. ;)
BOTH groups are stuck with that thinking, worse thing is the people fall for it. makes no difference who the "nominees" are, you could put Hilary on the GOP ticket and Cruz on the dem ticket and people would not even notice their names and vote for the magical "D" or "R" for that matter.
 

Huntn

macrumors demi-god
Original poster
May 5, 2008
17,082
16,605
The Misty Mountains
BOTH groups are stuck with that thinking, worse thing is the people fall for it. makes no difference who the "nominees" are, you could put Hilary on the GOP ticket and Cruz on the dem ticket and people would not even notice their names and vote for the magical "D" or "R" for that matter.
In many cases, kinda, but they would fall over dumbfounded if Cruz showed up with a D next to his name, and some might also assume it is a typo and vote for him anyway. ;)
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
None can pass the purity test; however, Republican voters can at least choose from libertarian to Evangelical to checked-pants country-clubber.

The Democrats, however, chose nomination by coronation and what do they offer? A foreign policy "expert" who:

Voted for the 2003 Iraq War.
Was baffled by chaos in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Ukraine
Created an Islamist snake pit in Libya.
Saber-rattles towards Russia for no obvious purpose.
Defends the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens.

And who on the domestic policy front:

Supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Supported the Defense of Marriage Act.
Publicly opposed gay marriage
Supported NAFTA.
Refuses to take a position on the TPA.

Of course, Hillary always has that hopey-changey thing going for her. :p

Looks like I'll be voting "I" again in '16, though.
It's on, she has that magical "D" next to her name, they will vote for her just because of it
Enter Martin O'Malley.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/20/400447308/omalley-americas-economy-needs-sensible-rebalancing-not-pitchforks

Happy now?

BL.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,237
quae tangit perit Trump
None can pass the purity test; however, Republican voters can at least choose from libertarian to Evangelical to checked-pants country-clubber.
I'm less certain that this is not a distinction without a difference when it comes to the actual positions of each of these candidates, however. Each tries to carry some standard, but how fast will they drop that flag when the times suits them?

Considering the flip-flops of various GOP candidates already, it's not looking good and sharp-eyed voters should pay particular attention to how fast the libertarian standard gets hidden in the hall closet.

...The Democrats, however, chose nomination by coronation and what do they offer?...
Slow down with that past-tense there chief. We haven't had a single caucus, much less a primary and all that talk of Clinton's inevitable reign so far is marketing bluster.