• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Huntsman 2016?

Huntsman 2016?

  • Yes, he's the front-runner

    Votes: 1 2.9%

  • Probably will be stronger, but still doesn't have enough

    Votes: 8 22.9%

  • No, not really

    Votes: 24 68.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 2 5.7%
  • Total voters
    35
  • Poll closed .
Slyfox696 said:
Watching the Republican debates last year, Huntsman was the only one who didn't come off as a complete clown. I simply do not know enough about him to say if I'd vote for him, but I would have at least been willing to give him an honest chance to win my vote. I assume my position on him would be the same in 4 years.

Of course, like others in this thread have noted, the fact he wasn't a clown in those debates are what kept him from having any real chance of winning and would likely prevent him from winning next round as well.
Click to expand...

Given your politics that means he was the most RINOesque of the bunch

Anyone who is pro freedom is probably clownish to you
 
TurtleDude said:
Hillary isn't the shining Joan of Arkansas that you leftwing women think she is. She lost to Obama after all.

She's also aged very poorly and she's gonna be really long in the tooth come 2016.
Click to expand...

And yet, significantly better than what the Republicans will likely throw out at election time.;)
 
Huntsman is no doubt a capable man but conservatives are in no mood to run another candidate designed to placate the moderates and independents. In general people tend to respect and get motivated by a firm opinion, even if they disagree, rather than a man who is a reed that sways with the wind.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Watching the Republican debates last year, Huntsman was the only one who didn't come off as a complete clown. I simply do not know enough about him to say if I'd vote for him, but I would have at least been willing to give him an honest chance to win my vote. I assume my position on him would be the same in 4 years.

Of course, like others in this thread have noted, the fact he wasn't a clown in those debates are what kept him from having any real chance of winning and would likely prevent him from winning next round as well.
Click to expand...

Santorum and Romney didn't come off as clowns, except as edited for the purpose of making them look that way.
 
year2late said:
And yet, significantly better than what the Republicans will likely throw out at election time.;)
Click to expand...

that is either right or wrong. If you are a socialist then that is true-there are at least two components to this issue

a) what are the policies of the candidate

b) what are the personal qualities of the candidate

I tend to worry about the a thing more than b.

you might come up with a really good person but if he's a gun banning tax hiking socialist I would vote for a woodchuck over him

So you being a "progressive" that means you want a far lefty and clinton is probably the best choice even though personally she's pretty scummy
 
johndylan1 said:
Santorum and Romney didn't come off as clowns, except as edited for the purpose of making them look that way.
Click to expand...

Romney was one of the best men to ever run for president. it sucks he lost to one of the worst
 
AGENT J said:
Huntsman IMO would be a good candidate not to extreme and on the "hot topic issues" kind of middle of the road in general
Jon Huntsman on the Issues


He has evolved on equal rights for gays he now supports them.
"All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience."

He supports the 2nd amendment

not so good on the antiabortion front to extreme

seems good on government reform, corporations and crime and some other issues


but my guess is with politics current scene like it is, "sterotypical" him supporting equal rights (some how this has become bad) will NEVER allow him to get the republican nomination and thats sad.
Click to expand...

I find it curious that you agree with his stance on gay rights, as you argued against this part of the statement in the photography thread; "This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience." Any way he's way to moderate to get nominated.
 
will the person you vote for in 2016...work to reduce the size and scope of the federal government?..or will he just continue on with the large intrusive government we have now and build on it?
 
johndylan1 said:
I find it curious that you agree with his stance on gay rights, as you argued against this part of the statement in the photography thread; "This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience." Any way he's way to moderate to get nominated.
Click to expand...

not sure what you are saying?

i never argued against that statement, he is actually repeating the facts i point out to people with the failed strawmen about churches.

he is smart enough to know there are fear mongers out their and idiots that think that its possible so he made the statement to cut them off at the pass and say "This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience."

now people cant use that failed strawman because he already defeated it


you trying to connect that to the photography instance is a failure because those people were not forced to do anything.

They broke the law and violated rights, these facts cant be changed.

You simply misunderstand the reality and mix the facts with your opinion.

Let me know if i can clear up anything else for you.
 
TurtleDude said:
Given your politics that means he was the most RINOesque of the bunch

Anyone who is pro freedom is probably clownish to you
Click to expand...
Anyone who says overtly stupid things, anyone who resorts to extremism instead of rationality is what I consider to be clownish. And, as I said, Huntsman was the only one I saw in the debates I thought was worth my consideration for a vote.
johndylan1 said:
Santorum and Romney didn't come off as clowns, except as edited for the purpose of making them look that way.
Click to expand...
I watched the debates as they happened (with the exception of one, I believe). Yes, they did.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Anyone who says overtly stupid things, anyone who resorts to extremism instead of rationality is what I consider to be clownish. And, as I said, Huntsman was the only one I saw in the debates I thought was worth my consideration for a vote.
I watched the debates as they happened (with the exception of one, I believe). Yes, they did.
Click to expand...

Did you or would you have voted for Reagan?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Anyone who says overtly stupid things, anyone who resorts to extremism instead of rationality is what I consider to be clownish. And, as I said, Huntsman was the only one I saw in the debates I thought was worth my consideration for a vote.
I watched the debates as they happened (with the exception of one, I believe). Yes, they did.
Click to expand...




Yeah your definition of stupid is probably a bit different than most of ours.
 
radcen said:
Huntsman 2016?

Yes, it's very preliminary, and a lot can happen between now and then, but if you had to venture a guess, what do you think of Jon Huntsman's chances for gaining the Republican nomination for President in 2016? Do you think he made enough of a name for himself to be honestly considered by enough people next time?
Click to expand...

we had a rino in 2008 fail
we had a rino in 2012 fail
so we need one in 2016? fail
definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results
 
Slyfox696 said:
Anyone who says overtly stupid things, anyone who resorts to extremism instead of rationality is what I consider to be clownish. And, as I said, Huntsman was the only one I saw in the debates I thought was worth my consideration for a vote.
I watched the debates as they happened (with the exception of one, I believe). Yes, they did.
Click to expand...

Please, give an in context quote that you found clownish, so that I can measure whether it is the accused clown or if perhaps it is clownish perception.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Anyone who says overtly stupid things, anyone who resorts to extremism instead of rationality is what I consider to be clownish. And, as I said, Huntsman was the only one I saw in the debates I thought was worth my consideration for a vote.
I watched the debates as they happened (with the exception of one, I believe). Yes, they did.
Click to expand...

because you are a liberal so of coarse you would vote for a rino

the biggest problem with the republican party is they have to many big government democrats in it
 
trfjr said:
we had a rino in 2008 fail
we had a rino in 2012 fail
so we need one in 2016? fail
definition of insanity is keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results
Click to expand...

2008 was a heavily Democratic year nationally and 2012 was a moderately Democratic one. I doubt any Republican would've done remarkably better than McCain or Romney. Huntsman isn't a RINO anyway.
 
trfjr said:
because you are a liberal so of coarse you would vote for a rino

the biggest problem with the republican party is they have to many big government democrats in it
Click to expand...

the biggest problem is that 80 years of welfare socialism has created a huge dependent class and many republicans correctly fear that if you make the addicts face cold turkey they are going to be as pissed as a smack junkie told he's gonna have to do without. The way to do things is to get GOP presidents who can appoint judges who actually care and then gradually cut down on the welfare state law by law
 
TurtleDude said:
the biggest problem is that 80 years of welfare socialism has created a huge dependent class and many republicans correctly fear that if you make the addicts face cold turkey they are going to be as pissed as a smack junkie told he's gonna have to do without. The way to do things is to get GOP presidents who can appoint judges who actually care and then gradually cut down on the welfare state law by law
Click to expand...

It'll take just as long to wean off of the dependency as it was to get people addicted. In a perfect world 80% of those dependencies can go away. My fear isn't so much about the dependent class but that there can be no way to remove the dependency without killing the entire country, it's economy... pretty much everything and having to start over. In other words, the cancer (dependency) has grown so big, removing it will kill the patient so you have to let it die and try again with something else.
 
Ockham said:
It'll take just as long to wean off of the dependency as it was to get people addicted. In a perfect world 80% of those dependencies can go away. My fear isn't so much about the dependent class but that there can be no way to remove the dependency without killing the entire country, it's economy... pretty much everything and having to start over. In other words, the cancer (dependency) has grown so big, removing it will kill the patient so you have to let it die and try again with something else.
Click to expand...

One of Scalia's most well regarded former law clerks explained this as why he (like his former boss) are "faint hearted originalists"
 
trfjr said:
And Anna Nicole Smith married for love
Click to expand...

How many RINO's get an A from the Cato Institute on Tax Policy? Or have 80%+ approval in Utah? Look at his actual positions on the issues and not just the way that both the left and the right media have tried to portray him.
 
Ockham said:
It'll take just as long to wean off of the dependency as it was to get people addicted. In a perfect world 80% of those dependencies can go away. My fear isn't so much about the dependent class but that there can be no way to remove the dependency without killing the entire country, it's economy... pretty much everything and having to start over. In other words, the cancer (dependency) has grown so big, removing it will kill the patient so you have to let it die and try again with something else.
Click to expand...

only cure I see is the red states to secede from the union and start anew send the parasites to the blue states for free if they resist the reform
 
Anagram said:
How many RINO's get an A from the Cato Institute on Tax Policy? Or have 80%+ approval in Utah? Look at his actual positions on the issues and not just the way that both the left and the right media have tried to portray him.
Click to expand...

well here is the problem

far lefties like him and a "slightly conservative" poster is his biggest fan

Hmmmm
 
TurtleDude said:
well here is the problem

far lefties like him and a "slightly conservative" poster is his biggest fan

Hmmmm
Click to expand...

That's because of the ****ty campaign he ran last year as well as the fact both the left and the right had strong incentives to characterize him as a liberal. But actually look at his policies. They aren't.
 
Anagram said:
How many RINO's get an A from the Cato Institute on Tax Policy? Or have 80%+ approval in Utah? Look at his actual positions on the issues and not just the way that both the left and the right media have tried to portray him.
Click to expand...


HUNTSMAN: “Right now, this country is crying out for a sensible middle ground. This is a center-right country; I am a center-right candidate. Right now, we’ve got people on the fringes.”

As governor Huntsman promoted programs intended to reduce carbon emissions, including the Western Climate Initiative, which included six states and three Canadian provinces, had a cap-a-trade provision and encouraged fuel-efficient vehicles, renewable energy use and energy conservation. He also appeared in an advertisement sponsored by Environmental Defense, where he said, “Now it’s time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse-gas pollution.”

threatened to veto a measure repealing in-state college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants

In 2007, when asked about a healthcare mandate, Huntsman said, “I’m comfortable with a requirement – you can call it whatever you want, but at some point we’re going to have to get serious about how we deal with this issue”.

sounds like a democrat to me

and the litmus test for all republicans if they are a rino or not is if libeals like SlyFox696 would vote for him
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom