[US Election 2016] Republican Primary Megathread

[Shazbotdom]

I wish Mitt Romney was running. I'd vote for him. Its about time we had a Republican president, after 8 years of a mediocre Democrat.
Rand Paul is a close second, however.

Romney was a bad choice for the GOP 4 years ago. He will continue to be a bad choice for the GOP.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I wish Mitt Romney was running. I'd vote for him. Its about time we had a Republican president, after 8 years of a mediocre Democrat.
Rand Paul is a close second, however.

Mitt Romney believes in an insane religion and has political views that are too moderate or too extreme for everyone.

He literally is the worst GOP candidate to have run in my lifetime.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I wish Mitt Romney was running. I'd vote for him. Its about time we had a Republican president, after 8 years of a mediocre Democrat.
Rand Paul is a close second, however.

Romney was a bad choice for the GOP 4 years ago. He will continue to be a bad choice for the GOP.

Romney is a special kind of terrible. I cannot articulate all the reasons he is a terrible candidate.

[Wallenburg]

I wish Mitt Romney was running. I'd vote for him. Its about time we had a Republican president, after 8 years of a mediocre Democrat.
Rand Paul is a close second, however.

A nicely wrapped package summarizing how awful of a presidential candidate he was. God bless the Republicans!

[Ashlak]

Mitt Romney is the perfect example of a stereotypical careerist politician. The only reason anyone voted for him in the 2012 election was because his opponent was Obama.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Mitt Romney is the perfect example of a stereotypical careerist politician. The only reason anyone voted for him in the 2012 election was because his opponent was Obama.

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Mitt Romney is the perfect example of a stereotypical careerist politician. The only reason anyone voted for him in the 2012 election was because his opponent was Obama.

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

So either shit or batshit? Hillary 2016.

[Laerod]

Mitt Romney is the perfect example of a stereotypical careerist politician. The only reason anyone voted for him in the 2012 election was because his opponent was Obama.

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

Huntsman wasn't nuts. Probably the sanest of the entire bunch. Also, I wouldn't call Gingrich crazy either. I assume he knew exactly what he was doing, making him evil rather than stupid.

[Neutraligon]

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

Huntsman wasn't nuts. Probably the sanest of the entire bunch. Also, I wouldn't call Gingrich crazy either. I assume he knew exactly what he was doing, making him evil rather than stupid.

Huntsman was too sane. He had no chance.

[Steamtopia]

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

So either shit or batshit? Hillary 2016.

Isn't that American elections in a nutshell?

[The Nuclear Fist]

So either shit or batshit? Hillary 2016.

Isn't that American elections in a nutshell?

Only if you have a fedora and a reddit account.

[Steamtopia]

Isn't that American elections in a nutshell?

Only if you have a fedora and a reddit account.

M'lady.

[Patridam]

Mitt Romney is the perfect example of a stereotypical careerist politician. The only reason anyone voted for him in the 2012 election was because his opponent was Obama.

He's most certainly flip-floptastic and often doesn't watch what he says and both of those things came back to bite him in the past campgain. However he's pretty moderate and unrelentingly pragmatic, which is fresh in a party full of extremists and ideologues. I'd still take Rand Paul first, but I think Mitt actually would've been fairly competent despite his intrinsic sliminess.

[Jefferson and Madison]

None of the above.

The closest one I could support on that list is Rand Paul due to my moderate libertarianism. But his excellent free market plans don't seem to include measures to guarantee low income Americans equal choice (especially on health care). I support repealing provisions of the ACA that stifle competition, restrict insurance companies from selling freely, force people onto plans they may not need, and raise prices. But that needs to be combined with comprehensive vouchers to grant those who need help access to medicine.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

None of the above.

The closest one I could support on that list is Rand Paul due to my moderate libertarianism. But his excellent free market plans don't seem to include measures to guarantee low income Americans equal choice (especially on health care). I support repealing provisions of the ACA that stifle competition, restrict insurance companies from selling freely, force people onto plans they may not need, and raise prices. But that needs to be combined with comprehensive vouchers to grant those who need help access to medicine.

In short, "I can't really vote for any of them because I'm not a poverty-shaming asshole." Does that sum it up?

[Jefferson and Madison]

None of the above.

The closest one I could support on that list is Rand Paul due to my moderate libertarianism. But his excellent free market plans don't seem to include measures to guarantee low income Americans equal choice (especially on health care). I support repealing provisions of the ACA that stifle competition, restrict insurance companies from selling freely, force people onto plans they may not need, and raise prices. But that needs to be combined with comprehensive vouchers to grant those who need help access to medicine.

In short, "I can't really vote for any of them because I'm not a poverty-shaming asshole." Does that sum it up?

Exactly. They take good free market principles but don't emphasize vouchers for employed workers to guarantee equal access. I can't support that.

I support a universal capitalism. Businesses should compete in all industries (including health care and education), but lower income citizens who have demonstrated consistent employment should have access to vouchers so they still have equal opportunity. The GOP is no good in that regard.

[Patridam]

A good portion of this thread is just the Social Democrats / full on socialists that make up so much of NS saying how they don't support any one of the above candidates because they are too, well, Republican. It doesn't really add anything to the for someone who thinks Hillary is too right-wing to say how he doesn't like any of the candidates, since they're vying for a party he'd never vote for anyway.

[Jefferson and Madison]

A good portion of this thread is just the Social Democrats / full on socialists that make up so much of NS saying how they don't support any one of the above candidates because they are too, well, Republican. It doesn't really add anything to the for someone who thinks Hillary is too right-wing to say how he doesn't like any of the candidates, since they're vying for a party he'd never vote for anyway.

I guess I'm a very odd exception to your rule. I am a capitalist libertarian who doesn't support any of the above.

[Dyakovo]

A good portion of this thread is just the Social Democrats / full on socialists that make up so much of NS saying how they don't support any one of the above candidates because they are too, well, Republican. It doesn't really add anything to the for someone who thinks Hillary is too right-wing to say how he doesn't like any of the candidates, since they're vying for a party he'd never vote for anyway.

Boo-hoo.

[MERIZoC]

The only reason he got nominated is because everyone else was literally batshit.

Romney was a flip flopping fucking idiot. But compared to, say Santorum, he was a moderate. Thing is, the next time the GOP wins, it's gonna be with a libertarian or a Tea Partier.

So either shit or batshit? Hillary 2016.

Thought you didn't want shit....

[Patridam]

A good portion of this thread is just the Social Democrats / full on socialists that make up so much of NS saying how they don't support any one of the above candidates because they are too, well, Republican. It doesn't really add anything to the for someone who thinks Hillary is too right-wing to say how he doesn't like any of the candidates, since they're vying for a party he'd never vote for anyway.

I guess I'm a very odd exception to your rule. I am a capitalist libertarian who doesn't support any of the above.

It's not a rule, just an observation. Look back through the thread, there a good number of people on the thread simply to assert how much all of the candidates suck.

As for you; obviously no candidate is going to wholly fit your ideology no matter what it may be (true for me too), so it often comes down to who serves as the most ameloriable compromise. I'd rather support an imperfect candidate than abstain from any support because I didn't find one exactly suited to me. If that would be too much compromise for you to support Rand the best I can suggest is Gary Johnson, but he's an unabashed hardliner and has a snowball's chance of even getting on the debates let alone a win.

[Patridam]

A good portion of this thread is just the Social Democrats / full on socialists that make up so much of NS saying how they don't support any one of the above candidates because they are too, well, Republican. It doesn't really add anything to the for someone who thinks Hillary is too right-wing to say how he doesn't like any of the candidates, since they're vying for a party he'd never vote for anyway.

Boo-hoo.

This is the exact sort of maturity and recognition of opposing viewpoints I've come to expect from leftists on NS.

[Jefferson and Madison]

I guess I'm a very odd exception to your rule. I am a capitalist libertarian who doesn't support any of the above.

It's not a rule, just an observation. Look back through the thread, there a good number of people on the thread simply to assert how much all of the candidates suck.

As for you; obviously no candidate is going to wholly fit your ideology no matter what it may be (true for me too), so it often comes down to who serves as the most ameloriable compromise. I'd rather support an imperfect candidate than abstain from any support because I didn't find one exactly suited to me. If that would be too much compromise for you to support Rand the best I can suggest is Gary Johnson, but he's an unabashed hardliner and has a snowball's chance of even getting on the debates let alone a win.

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

[Patridam]

It's not a rule, just an observation. Look back through the thread, there a good number of people on the thread simply to assert how much all of the candidates suck.

As for you; obviously no candidate is going to wholly fit your ideology no matter what it may be (true for me too), so it often comes down to who serves as the most ameloriable compromise. I'd rather support an imperfect candidate than abstain from any support because I didn't find one exactly suited to me. If that would be too much compromise for you to support Rand the best I can suggest is Gary Johnson, but he's an unabashed hardliner and has a snowball's chance of even getting on the debates let alone a win.

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

You have very specific (pragmatic as they are) solutions to polarizing problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there isn't someone who alligns with all of them. Politics often falls to choosing the least of several evils, unfortunate as it is. To have enough candidates to represent the opinions of every American would be to have 320 million people running for the presidency.

[Jefferson and Madison]

Gary Johnson?

My ideal candidate would support the Libertarian Party line, except that he would also support vouchers (in the fields of health care, housing, and education) to guarantee equal market access for individuals who are employed but low income.

That puts me closer to Democrats than to someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz. Even though I think we should decentralize schooling and voucherize Medicaid, I still support a universal health system of sorts.

You have very specific (pragmatic as they are) solutions to polarizing problems so it shouldn't come as a surprise that there isn't someone who alligns with all of them. Politics often falls to choosing the least of several evils, unfortunate as it is. To have enough candidates to represent the opinions of every American would be to have 320 million people running for the presidency.

I get that, and I would never shirk from my duty to vote (I have a few years to go before I'm eligible, however). I'm probably going to support the Democratic 2016 candidate for pragmatic purposes.