If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Jon Huntsman smacks around RAND PAUL: "This is language that's suitable for the Republican primary, plain and simple. This isn't the language that's good for all Americans and that gets us closer to solving the problem," HUNTSMAN 2016   (politico.com) divider line 55
    More: Cool, Republican Primary, Jon Huntsman, Republicans, Kentucky Senators, No Labels, structural unemployment, welfare  
•       •       •

1631 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Dec 2013 at 11:24 AM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-09 11:15:58 AM
God, I hope him getting back in the news is his precursor to running in 2016. If anyone needs him to run, it's the GOP.

/he'll get killed in the primaries again
//still manage to call his opponents "farking retarded" in Chinese though
 
2013-12-09 11:27:19 AM
RINO
 
2013-12-09 11:28:29 AM
I find it pretty amusing that he's admitting that what Republicans want to hear isn't suited for actually solving important issues.
 
2013-12-09 11:28:35 AM
I'm glad he didn't win the primary last election cycle because he would have probably beaten Obama. A moderate republican is still a republican
 
2013-12-09 11:29:59 AM

ModernPrimitive01: I'm glad he didn't win the primary last election cycle because he would have probably beaten Obama. A moderate republican is still a republican


it was said at the time (and I have no reason to doubt it) that he was the only GOP contender that actually made the Obama team worry about whether they could win
 
2013-12-09 11:31:18 AM
I like Huntsman a lot.  He's reasonable, intelligent and not full of shiat.  I have no idea how he ever made it this far in politics.
 
2013-12-09 11:33:12 AM
(QUIZ: Do you know Rand Paul?)

Nope, and that's a GOOD thing...
 
2013-12-09 11:35:59 AM

Anyone got pics of his daughters?


I seem to recall they were all hotties.

 
2013-12-09 11:36:05 AM
Why is it suitable for the primary?
 
2013-12-09 11:37:34 AM

Andy Andy: Why is it suitable for the primary?


Because the people who participate in the Republican primary are not interested in "get[ting] us closer to solving the problem".
 
2013-12-09 11:38:23 AM
I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.
 
2013-12-09 11:38:25 AM
Why doesn't he defect to the Democratic Party already? He doesn't have shiat for brains, he isn't a fundie, and he seems genuinely interested in making a government that does more than punish it's citizens and bomb other countries.

In other words, he has absolutely nothing that republicans are looking for.
 
2013-12-09 11:39:47 AM

Klippoklondike: I like Huntsman a lot.  He's reasonable, intelligent and not full of shiat.  I have no idea how he ever made it this far in politics.


I never heard anything reasonable or intelligent from him until AFTER he was out of the running.

I hope he learned a lesson from that.
 
2013-12-09 11:42:13 AM

Poopspasm: Why doesn't he defect to the Democratic Party already? He doesn't have shiat for brains, he isn't a fundie, and he seems genuinely interested in making a government that does more than punish it's citizens and bomb other countries.

In other words, he has absolutely nothing that republicans are looking for.


There actually are Repubs out there worthy of holding office. I don't know much about Huntsman but the fact that he's willing to stand up and say "you have to get over your damn selves" to his colleagues seems to be a real point in his favor.

In other words, he'll be lucky to come in 4th place in the primaries. The base likes potatoes and they will vote potato until someone comes along who has genuine bona fides as a crossover candidate.

Remember, the Democrats were lost in the wilderness for much of the 80's, similar to where the Repubs are now.
 
2013-12-09 11:42:15 AM

Poopspasm: Why doesn't he defect to the Democratic Party already? He doesn't have shiat for brains, he isn't a fundie, and he seems genuinely interested in making a government that does more than punish it's citizens and bomb other countries.

In other words, he has absolutely nothing that republicans are looking for.


If you believe the book Double Down, he did consider going independent during his last presidential primary run. A shame, he didn't.
 
2013-12-09 11:43:04 AM

Spaced Lion: I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.


Really? That's all it would take? One can infer that since you've never voted R in a national election, you don't agree with their party platform, but you'd take the Republican platform over the Democratic one simply because Hillary Clinton is involved? How does that make sense at all?
 
2013-12-09 11:43:48 AM
I too am opposed to Ran Paul's approach. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

It is not enough to say we should stop paying out welfare, we should demand that the recipients pay it back.

Now I'm sure some of you will point out we give oil companies and defense companies a lot of money too, but at least we get something for it. We give an oil company millions of dollars in tax breaks and we get billions of dollars in oil. We give a defense company billions of dollars and we get trillions of dollars of war in return. What do we get when we give the poor money? Nothing.

You'll probably say "but they have no jobs" or "they have no money". Weak. The prison industry has a long track record of taking people who were previously thought to be useless and turning them into profitable and productive employees. We need to expand that jobs program so everyone who has received welfare can pay off their debt.
 
2013-12-09 11:44:01 AM
The problem with these 'moderate, reasonable' candidates from the GOP is simply that....they're from the GOP.  It's not that I have an issue with people like Huntsman, or even McCain...it's the people that come with them.  It's the Bachman's, the Cruz's, the Aikin's...the people that have turned the Republican party into a frothy, steamy cesspool of hatred, derp, and willful ignorance.

The moderates (RINO's, if you want) aren't the problem...it's the virulent derp brigade shambling along behind them.
 
2013-12-09 11:44:41 AM
"It's about politics, and that is the broader issue that we're all about here with No Labels, and that is in this long streak of pessimism this country has faced, the longest in our nation's history, what are we going to do to come together - Republicans, Democrats, independents - and start finding solutions? Not words, not sound bites, not finger pointing, acrimony and anger, but actually finding solutions," Huntsman said.

pipedream.jpg

/other members of GOP can't hear this comment over their hysterical laughter
 
2013-12-09 11:47:11 AM

A Cave Geek: The problem with these 'moderate, reasonable' candidates from the GOP is simply that....they're from the GOP.


There's also the problem where candidates that currently seem "moderate, reasonable" are George W. Bush Republicans of 10 years ago.
 
MFK
2013-12-09 11:54:48 AM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I too am opposed to Ran Paul's approach. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

It is not enough to say we should stop paying out welfare, we should demand that the recipients pay it back.

Now I'm sure some of you will point out we give oil companies and defense companies a lot of money too, but at least we get something for it. We give an oil company millions of dollars in tax breaks and we get billions of dollars in oil. We give a defense company billions of dollars and we get trillions of dollars of war in return. What do we get when we give the poor money? Nothing.

You'll probably say "but they have no jobs" or "they have no money". Weak. The prison industry has a long track record of taking people who were previously thought to be useless and turning them into profitable and productive employees. We need to expand that jobs program so everyone who has received welfare can pay off their debt.


10/10. See folks, THIS is how you do it.
 
2013-12-09 11:58:04 AM
Huntsman's economic policy is...well, it's hopelessly naive in the macro sense, but he does have a decent track record at the budgetary level. He was who I threw my last Republican Primary vote for, despite his withdrawal from the race, mainly because there was no way in 10,000 Hells I was going to put a vote towards Romney, and it was perhaps a futile gesture, but then again, the Republican bid last go around was pretty much all about Sturm and Drang to suck in campaign money and spread it around.

Huntsman gets his fiscal ducks in a row, I can see supporting him, because he brings much needed sanity, but his economic policy is pretty much a horror show. Domestic policy he isn't bad, and his foreign policy positions oddly enough, with his former Ambassadorship to China show a strong support working with nations to help defuse NK and in helping the human rights questions in Asia. He is in favor of immigration reform, and my biggest issue with him, is that he is still pimping out macroeconomic solutions that are still pure Corporatism, but at the local level, he at least has some sanity where money should at least be spent, and how it is collected in some areas.

He's far from perfect, but he is a step in proper direction at least.
 
2013-12-09 11:58:51 AM

MFK: 10/10. See folks, THIS is how you do it.


I would have given it a 2/10 for being waaaay too farking obvious.
 
2013-12-09 12:01:26 PM

hubiestubert: and it was perhaps a futile gesture


It has to start somewhere.  "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step"
 
2013-12-09 12:06:05 PM
Jon Huntsman - the least crazy Republican running for president.
 
2013-12-09 12:06:28 PM

hubiestubert: Huntsman's economic policy is...well, it's hopelessly naive in the macro sense, but he does have a decent track record at the budgetary level. He was who I threw my last Republican Primary vote for, despite his withdrawal from the race, mainly because there was no way in 10,000 Hells I was going to put a vote towards Romney, and it was perhaps a futile gesture, but then again, the Republican bid last go around was pretty much all about Sturm and Drang to suck in campaign money and spread it around.

Huntsman gets his fiscal ducks in a row, I can see supporting him, because he brings much needed sanity, but his economic policy is pretty much a horror show. Domestic policy he isn't bad, and his foreign policy positions oddly enough, with his former Ambassadorship to China show a strong support working with nations to help defuse NK and in helping the human rights questions in Asia. He is in favor of immigration reform, and my biggest issue with him, is that he is still pimping out macroeconomic solutions that are still pure Corporatism, but at the local level, he at least has some sanity where money should at least be spent, and how it is collected in some areas.

He's far from perfect, but he is a step in proper direction at least.


My problem with Huntsman is that he seems like a very nice guy who also happens to be a George W. Bush-era Republican, so I would expect any Huntsman Administration to largely resemble the Bush II Administration with maybe an injection of competence. I wouldn't expect any radical departures from normal Republican policy on federal judges or defense, which probably means the DoD will be re-stocked with the old guard neocons who have been a hallmark of Republican presidential administrations since Nixon. His economic platform will probably consist of tax cuts and few other details; his social platform will be "let the states do whatever they want".

It's a step in the right direction, sure. The problem is that step still gets us a typical Republican.
 
2013-12-09 12:10:39 PM

qorkfiend: Really? That's all it would take? One can infer that since you've never voted R in a national election, you don't agree with their party platform, but you'd take the Republican platform over the Democratic one simply because Hillary Clinton is involved? How does that make sense at all?


Good point. I'd have to be a fool to think that he'd ignore pressure from party bosses after being elected. Purely as a candidate, I like him better than Hillary, but that isn't all there is to consider.
 
2013-12-09 12:29:06 PM
Huntsman is awesome.  His chances of ever winning a republican primary are equal to Wendy Davis's chances of becoming governor of Texas.
 
2013-12-09 12:41:08 PM

orclover: Huntsman is awesome.  His chances of ever winning a republican primary are equal to Wendy Davis's chances of becoming governor of Texas.


Jon hit the nail on the head when he said that sort of talk works in primaries. One of the big dilemmas building in the GOP these days is you have to go full-retard to win the primary and that makes the candidate so unlikeable for the general election.
 
2013-12-09 12:41:21 PM

Spaced Lion: I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.


I've never voted R in a national election, and I would still pick Hillary over Huntsman.  But I would like that I would be voting in an election where I was voting for the person whose ideas I like more instead of picking the "sane" side of the sane/insane dichotomy.
 
2013-12-09 12:49:50 PM

ModernPrimitive01: A moderate republican is still a republican


THIS.  If he had any integrity at all, he wouldn't be implicitly endorsing the "KKK II: Electric Boogaloo" with his membership.
 
2013-12-09 01:04:57 PM

grumpfuff: MFK: 10/10. See folks, THIS is how you do it.

I would have given it a 2/10 for being waaaay too farking obvious.


I thought it was good, but the ultimate measure of a troll is bites. . . Looks like he might have struck out. He does get PN points though, but he didn't quite go "WTF?" enough at the end.
 
2013-12-09 01:08:59 PM

Target Builder: RINO


This. Even though e could pull a LOT of moderate votes (possibly even enough), for some reason the Republicans think only far-right votes are worth pursuing of late.
 
2013-12-09 01:17:47 PM
Huntsmen was the only real threat to Obama last election, and he got torn apart in the primaries.  My decision between him and Obama would have came down to the debates.  And we saw how Obama did in his first debate.

Huntsmen however is despised by the R base.  He's intelligent, reasonable, and willing to compromise.  Something the current R base finds abhorrent.
 
2013-12-09 01:19:50 PM

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: I too am opposed to Ran Paul's approach. It doesn't go nearly far enough.

It is not enough to say we should stop paying out welfare, we should demand that the recipients pay it back.


Are you putting out a letter or news of some sort?
 
2013-12-09 01:24:00 PM

Empty Matchbook: Target Builder: RINO

This. Even though e could pull a LOT of moderate votes (possibly even enough), for some reason the Republicans think only far-right votes are worth pursuing of late.


That's because the Moderates don't contribute like the Whackadoodles and The Believers. And right now, it's about milking the Idiot Brigade of as much cash as possible, BEFORE squeezing them out the door. For the folks running the show, leaving a sucker with cash in his wallet is a crime against humanity...

You have to break the competition. They enlisted the Idiot Brigade for their passion, and inability to discern a winning investment strategy, and the difficulty is, when you run a con like this, you CANNOT leave them with enough money to ever make a run at you again. Of course, with the Religious Right, there are already cracks in the alliance, and with the Catholics with a Pope who is on about actual service, and making a point of charity and good works, and not just kiting checks for some Heavenly credit, and if that gets pushed more, there will be folks with cash still in their pockets who will remember some of the more heated rhetoric. The bulk of the Idiot Brigade though, HAS to be broken. They have to be drained of cash, their reputations have to be destroyed, and their icons tarnished beyond redemption--which means hanging them out by their own words and works, but in the mean time, they can pay lip service until they extract the last of the disposable income.
 
2013-12-09 01:24:42 PM
In other words, Huntsman will be booed and jeered out of the Primaries.
 
2013-12-09 01:27:51 PM

Poopspasm: Why doesn't he defect to the Democratic Party already? He doesn't have shiat for brains, he isn't a fundie, and he seems genuinely interested in making a government that does more than punish it's citizens and bomb other countries.

In other words, he has absolutely nothing that republicans are looking for.


Actually, there used to be Republicans like that before Reagan unleashed the unwashed. That's how they got the reputation as fiscally conservative grown-ups, when anyone who just came in during the last 30 years has got to be wondering if they misunderstand the definition of those words.
 
2013-12-09 01:29:43 PM

qorkfiend: I find it pretty amusing that he's admitting that what Republicans want to hear isn't suited for actually solving important issues.



I find it amusing and sad that Republicans don't understand the difference.
 
2013-12-09 01:42:45 PM

Greywar: And we saw how Obama did in his first debate.


No no, I can't let you get away with that. Obama flunked the first debate because Romney did something no one expected him to do (especially on the Obama camp); he simply said that he didn't say the things he did. Huntsman would have been a completely different animal (the logical opponent Obama thought he was going to face), and those would have been debates worth watching.
 
2013-12-09 01:50:02 PM

qorkfiend: Spaced Lion: I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.

Really? That's all it would take? One can infer that since you've never voted R in a national election, you don't agree with their party platform, but you'd take the Republican platform over the Democratic one simply because Hillary Clinton is involved? How does that make sense at all?


I've heard this kind of thing before and the most common response I get when asking why is "dynasty." I think many people feel that our democracy is diminished when we repeatedly elect people from the same families to high offices. The Kennedy and Bush names are most frequently held up, with Clinton a possibility if Hillary is elected.
It's not completely partisan, either. I know Republicans who won't vote for Jeb Bush to be president because his dad and his brother were president.
 
2013-12-09 01:51:41 PM

Peki: those would have been debates worth watching.


And that was some of the greatest appeal of Huntsman. For the first time in a generation, we had a promise of actual, real, policy debates and not just a fight of soundbites.
 
2013-12-09 01:53:27 PM

somedude210: Peki: those would have been debates worth watching.

And that was some of the greatest appeal of Huntsman. For the first time in a generation, we had a promise of actual, real, policy debates and not just a fight of soundbites.


Yeah, if I weren't so terrified of ALEC shiatting all over the place the minute an R pres gets in, Huntsman would have been a touch choice for me.

/single issue voter on abortion, so the minute the Rs put of a pro-choice candidate, I'll have to re-evaluate
//like I'm really worried about it
 
2013-12-09 01:54:24 PM
Man, I'm not typing well today. Hands are too cold.
 
2013-12-09 01:55:42 PM

geek_mars: qorkfiend: Spaced Lion: I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.

Really? That's all it would take? One can infer that since you've never voted R in a national election, you don't agree with their party platform, but you'd take the Republican platform over the Democratic one simply because Hillary Clinton is involved? How does that make sense at all?

I've heard this kind of thing before and the most common response I get when asking why is "dynasty." I think many people feel that our democracy is diminished when we repeatedly elect people from the same families to high offices. The Kennedy and Bush names are most frequently held up, with Clinton a possibility if Hillary is elected.
It's not completely partisan, either. I know Republicans who won't vote for Jeb Bush to be president because his dad and his brother were president.


Bill and Hillary aren't a dynasty. They're a power couple.

"Dynasty" necessarily connotes blood relations. Now if Chelsea ran for office...
 
2013-12-09 02:21:41 PM

Riothamus: geek_mars: qorkfiend: Spaced Lion: I've never voted R in a national election, but I'd still pick Huntsman over Hillary.

Really? That's all it would take? One can infer that since you've never voted R in a national election, you don't agree with their party platform, but you'd take the Republican platform over the Democratic one simply because Hillary Clinton is involved? How does that make sense at all?

I've heard this kind of thing before and the most common response I get when asking why is "dynasty." I think many people feel that our democracy is diminished when we repeatedly elect people from the same families to high offices. The Kennedy and Bush names are most frequently held up, with Clinton a possibility if Hillary is elected.
It's not completely partisan, either. I know Republicans who won't vote for Jeb Bush to be president because his dad and his brother were president.

Bill and Hillary aren't a dynasty. They're a power couple.

"Dynasty" necessarily connotes blood relations. Now if Chelsea ran for office...


Oh, I didn't say it was the most common, correct response, just the most common response. I think some folks I've talked with realize that, and they counter that if Hillary were to win it would encourage Chelsea to get into politics with an eye on the presidency down the road.
 
2013-12-09 03:53:50 PM

Peki: /single issue voter


Aaaand you lost me. Single issue voters are the biggest problem facing this country right now. I spoke to a voter after she talked to our Congressman, and she said "He's pro-life. That tells me all I need to know about him." Really? Does it now? How about you look at their entire position package? And if they don't have one, don't vote for them.  If you can't name at least 3 positions for the person you're voting for and why you support them, stay home, you're not doing anyone any favors.
 
2013-12-09 04:36:38 PM
I would be happy to have the chance to vote against Huntsman. I disagree with him on numerous issues, but at least he has dignity and respect for the fact that the United States needs a functional government.
 
2013-12-09 04:52:14 PM
Huntsman was the only Republican I could have voted for in the last election, so I do hope he gets some more attention leading up to 2016.

Plus, Huntsman daughters:

s3-ec.buzzfed.com
 
2013-12-09 04:58:50 PM

coinspinner: Huntsman was the only Republican I could have voted for in the last election, so I do hope he gets some more attention leading up to 2016.

Plus, Huntsman daughters:

[s3-ec.buzzfed.com image 625x432]


Plus

img.fark.net

Hunt!  Hunt!  Hunt!  He's the Huntsman!
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report