The 2012 US Presidential Election - Who will run, Who will win???

Clint Eastwood for President!!.. But only if he acts like Dirty Harry...

 

@mia - I agree with your point on the race issue being the sole or at least main reason for his faults. While I know some people that try to attribute his race towards him wanting to be more socialist, most people I know just say he's good or bad based on his merits while in office.

As to the use of negro. I know that it's not derogatory as it's also used in the United Negro College Fund and other acronyms out there. I was just stating the point that only people of a certain age use it when I said 1965, because where I live, which is in the DFW metropolitan area of Texas, I never hear it. People just use black, African American if they're trying to be p.c., and the occasional slur. I personally always just use black as I don't see it as insensitive or misleading. To me African American only describes people that actually were born and lived in Africa, then came and became an American citizen. (I suppose that's the literal definition to me) I see it as a sort of double standard that some people think that black is not p.c. enough, yet you don't hear people going around calling whites, Caucasians.

 

Ron Paul, if he gets into office he'll be the most honest president since Kennedy. I have a feeling though that the powers at be really do not want him in, and as they become increasingly more desperate to balance the votes in their favor, they'll may start exercising more and more of their power.

 

It's already been started with the media blackouts of Paul. As the candidates begin to drop out, they'll be forced to cover him more. They do this through negative campaigning against him not initiated by other candidates but of their own volition.

 

That's a perfect analysis of the situation. I do have one thing to add - the people that run Obama, the people that made him President, and the leading Democrats in Congress, have all irresponsibly thrown boatloads of money at alternative energy boondoggles. They are now actively trying to catapult gas prices to over $8 a gallon so they can TRY to profit off their dead investments. They were conned, so Obama (the Anti-Energy President) is trying to con us by cutting off our oil.

The science for wind and solar isn't there. I'm involved in that business and I can tell you that the science isn't there. it's like trying to turn lead into gold.

 

I was raised in DFW, still in the area. Negro was in common use, as was colored, as they were because they were considered the nice appelation, and had just replaced "nigger" which was previously the accepted term but by the 1960s was only used in a pejorative sense except by the grandparent age group who had grown up with the term being the norm.

As i was in elementary school during the original effort to integrate the "separate-but-equal" model, a school in Mosier Valley (an old freedman community established post civil war) was closed and the kids were bussed to the one i attended. Familiar with the way the changes took place.

As the next few decades progressed social change was pretty rapid and the accepted term was a moving target. Colored was never at any point considered a pejorative phrase, just outdated. Ftr, the rapid changes in the terms left the US census bureau with a task trying to keep up as the self-described "What race do you consider yourself to be?" question was multiple choice and kept getting amended with usage, eventually settling on "African-American".

Not long ago the Census form was revised to re-add "Negro" as one of the options because older citizens of the WW2 thru baby-era continued in significant numbers to write-in "negro" because they spent years proving they were as American as anyone else... Fighting to end segregation in military units, college, etc... and having successfully done so they were offended by a step backwards to a hyphenated-American status that identified them equally with a country theyd never seen and the country theyd put their life on the line to gain equal citizenship.

So basically, though accepted wisdom is that African American is the "correct" term, and any other is offensive...its just as possible to offend some with that as with others. When you get down to it, there are a lot of races that fall into what is described by that word, and many that are described as such may strongly identify with america, jamaica, cuba, etc....

There isnt any current term thats perfectly acceptable to all. Basically its a color, not a single race involved. I generally use black or the hyphenated A-F version in written usage, but its hit or miss as to acceptability depending on the reader.

The funny part is the one term i'd never use due to its charged connotation is now commonly employed by the same people thatd throw a fit if i did, the young rapper guys. Those guys need to move forward with the rest of the world. People should be judged by their actions, not their skin. Obama has officially "broken the color barrier" for the nations highest office. Great, thats done. I dont care what color the next president is as long as it isnt him. That has nothing to do with his color, just his record of ineptitude.

 

Now thats funny. Looking at your picture, you could never tell you are black.

Amen.

 

Rofl. Funny how the language can read one way when you write it and another when its read.

 

Last night, Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary. Fox News is so invested in Romney that it's funny to watch their reaction - Fox is the only network NOT discussing that primary on their Sunday news shows.

George Stephanopoulos had a terrific show on ABC this morning and I learned some important things. First is that the two parties have really changed since 2007. The Republican party has become the party of the middle class - middle-class Democrats are defecting to the GOP in droves. And the Democratic party has become the party of the rich because only they continue to prosper in this economy.

The last is understandable because Obama has a chief-of-staff that worked at Citibank, a budget director that worked at Bain Capital, Obama has received more money from Goldman Sachs than any President in the history of the United States... This is why he directed his Justice Department to not go after the criminals in Wall Street that got us into this economy in the first place.

Newt is 68 years old. History has proven that older Presidents get more done (Reagan, Truman) because they are less concerned with their post-Presidential careers.

 

Rofl. Nice. That budget director appointment is rich with irony under the circumstances.

What *does* the White House think about experience at Bain?
.

Jan 8, 2012 - David Axelrod: Mitt Romney’s ‘Bain Mentality’ Will Undermine His Appeal
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...eys-bain-mentality-will-undermine-his-appeal/

Jan 22, 2012 - 2 weeks after Axelrods statement, Obama announces he found a grea budget director....
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...bama-picks-zients-as-acting-budget-director/1

"trust issues?"
Notice him saying anything about Zients experience at Bain & Co.?
Pick a side for Gods sake... Hard for time at Bain to be a disqualifying factor AND relevant experience.

 

Is this the same do as I say, not as I do Paul that tells us he's not the one wasting money in Washington, while he flies First Class on the tax payer?

Aside from loon, I'm adding hypocrite to my description of Paul and Paulbots..

Paul's whole strategy is designed around trying to attract the younger radical movement that he feels lean left of center.

 

That maybe so, but from what I see he's the best out of the lot of them.

 

I like the disruption that Ron Paul is causing. I don't think he'd make a good President, but I like that he's forcing more realism onto the campaigns. But not as much as Stephen Colbert!

 

He reminds me of those Charles Manson interviews Jerardo used to do back in the 80's... With Paul being Manson.

 

Geez. The news is reporting that Romney had an elevator for his car installed at his San Diego mansion. I see the Democrats easily making a case that Romney is part of the wealthy elite. I can't understand why Romney is making it so easy for them.

 

The guy is wealthy. Is that really news? Obama has made multiple attempts at crippling the bill of rights and I'm gonna worry that Romney might be rich? OMG!

We already know Romney's wealthy. Good. At least unlike Obama he's held a real job and succeeded at something besides winning elections or appointments..

 

http://www.e-autolifts.com/4posttable.html

Hmmm. $3k. The wife wanted a cherry wood four poster bed($3k), but a four post lift for my car. Sorry baby, but a man needs what a man needs.

Outside of the fact they think we should be concerned with a $3k lift while ignoring the $12 million home it is being installed in, I seriously don;'t get the "hate him because he is rich". They are all rich.

Hate Romney because he is more rich than some other politician who made his wealth from shady quid pro quo deals from wealthy political donors (Tony Rezko, UC Medical Center)? If anything, Romney's wealth, and the loyal group of people who have been with him for decades speak volumes about his character.

Michelle Obama's 317k/year part time job at UC Medical Center, granted as then Senator Barack's lobbied for millions for Michelle's employer says quite a bit about the character of the Obama's as well. When Michelle abandoned her "job" with the medical center to join the new President at the Whitehouse for her perpetual vacation on taxpayer dollars, the medical center eliminated the position entirely. Things that make you go hmmm.

 

Well now to be fair, as I pointed out when we were in the process of electing Mr "I oppose earmarks" Obama... he DID say that asking for the earmark for his wife's employer {the one that by sheer coincidence gave her that amazing raise after he hit the Senate} was something he shouldn't have done.

Of course he said he what he SHOULD have done was get another senator to do it for him.

Ethics. Chicago style. He's quite a guy.

 

I find it amazing he thought that would somehow make it better. And they call Romney out of touch.

The only thing his comment accomplished was to highlight how simple it is to put together a quid pro quo deal for a lobbyist that is out of reach of whatever legislation someone might create against it. Had the noob Senator actually used someone else to solicit funds for his wife's employer, the only way he could have been caught is if the Senator who did the soliciting actually testified against Obama. Even then, it would only be the Ethics Committee, a group of other Senators, doing the investigating and not impartial police, so the whole exercise is somewhat futile. It explains a lot of why things are the way they are.

Great article this morning.

 

When does the election takes place?