Deace: Huckabee will run in 2016

[Christian Liberty]

I didn't "wake up" until 2011. Until then, I thought that our country "rescued" people in the middle east from tyranny. Was I mislead? Yes. Was it totally my fault? Well, in this country we had come under the impression that the press was free and could be believed. There were so many things I was ignorant of, but the biggest was exactly what we were doing over there. I truly think that people are starting to wake up. I think that is why there was a big majority against going into Syria. People are coming to understand that we are on the wrong side. Call me a warmonger, but I would be not so opposed to aid Assad himself as he attempted to rescue his country from terrorists. But that is just it. People are waking up to the lies of the media and they are beginning to do their research, hence the HUGE objection to interference in Syria. The media has pulled on evangelicals heartstrings to make them think that the foreign policy was "helpful".

I wouldn't call you a warmonger, but I don't think its the job of the government to aid anyone. Stealing is always wrong, and that money would be stolen from taxpayers. That said, if you want to give aid to Assad, or if anyone else wants to do so.. go nuts.

For what its worth, I'd prefer Assad winning over the rebels. Its a lesser of evils, but still.

This is why I think that Rand would be more "in tune" with the evangelicals than Huckabee. And I don't know one single evangelical that truly liked Romney.

Too many like Huckabee, who is essentially a fasicst. But yes, they wouldn't like Romney.

Evangelicals don't want to kill gays. They just don't want to be put in the position to have to "condone" it. If marriage were taken out of the government, it would solve the whole problem for evangelicals.

I didn't actually bring this up, but yes, this is almost always true. Theonomic Reconstructionists do want to have a death penalty for homosexuality, but they are a minority.

That said, I know plenty of people who don't want to execute homosexuals that nonetheless don't support getting government out of marriage. That said, that's not the hill I'm going to die on among all the issues.

 

[Matt Collins]

It plays a huge role. Try having a rational conversation about Israel with a hardcore evangelical.

Try having a rational conversation with an atheist about teaching any religion in school. Try having a rational conversation with a union member about labor laws. Try having a rational conversation with any politically segmented group on their particular issue.... The point is that humans are irrational and behave as such, or at least they run on a dislogic.<br><br>See this:<br>http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/myth-rational-voter-why-democracies-choose-bad-policies<br>
<br>

 

[Brett85]

Most U.S. 'Christians' don't care about Middle East Christians being persecuted. Mainline Evangelicals want: Israel worship, war with Iran, support the troops, and kill the gays -- in that order.

All of that is probably true except for "kill the gays."

 

[Christian Liberty]

All of that is probably true except for "kill the gays."

James Madison wrote that post, I didn't. I quoted it, and replied to it, but I wasn't the author of the post. Just wanted to point that out.

Honestly, believe it or not, some of the people who actually do want homosexuality to be a capital crime are very liberty-oriented on a lot of issues. Theonomic Reconstructionists are generally solid on fiscal and foreign policy, as well as civil liberties on everything except for sex. Personally, I don't see why you'd die on that hill any more than you'd die on any other hill. I don't agree with them, of course. But liberals who think that locking people up for having firearms or killing people overseas for thumbing their nose at the US and yet condemn the Reconstructionists are absolute, total hypocrites.

The Christian Right, as you mention, rarely if ever wants to execute gays, but they do support Israel worship, war with Iran, and the troops. I know you don't support the first two. What's your opinion on the "Support the troops" statement? Do you "Support the troops"? Do you have a problem with people who won't?

 

[Working Poor]

Aw come on all of ya'll must know that Christie will win the republican nod no matter who runs in the primary because he is closest to being a democrat.

 

[compromise]

A social con and tax increasing fiscal moderate. I'd rather have Romney or Huntsman.

That Huntsman, who's well known for playing dirty? I would rather not.

Huck at least is somewhat sympathetic to Rand.

He might even be a debate ally on some issues:

Huckabee has criticized the Bush administration for "only proceeding down one track with Iran: armed conflict". He noted that the US has "[not] had diplomatic relations with Iran in almost 30 years, and a lot of good it's done".

This could be somewhat useful as Huckabee (unlike someone like Cruz), will not significantly take votes from Rand should both run.

In 2012 it seemed there were various alliances going on:
- Gingrich and Perry
- Gingrich and Cain
- Romney and Bachmann
- Romney and Paul
- Romney and Pawlenty
- Johnson and Paul

 

[erowe1]

This could be somewhat useful as Huckabee (unlike someone like Cruz), will not significantly take votes from Rand should both run.

I disagree about this. I think there's a huge overlap of their votes, and that within this overlap, a lot would pick Huckabee over Rand.

Rand's path to victory requires that he build a coalition that includes the segment of the GOP that Huckabee appeals to most. He can't win Iowa or the nomination without them.

 

[WM_in_MO]

Huckabee's big gov't sins are numerous and well documented. In a GOP that is now largely about limiting government Huckabee will have a hell of a hard time winning states outside the bible belt.

You're ALL FORGETTING that these fucking SHEEP will vote for whoever they are told to.

We might be able to get 10% to think for themselves and support Rand.

 

[erowe1]

We might be able to get 10% to think for themselves and support Rand.

I don't care if they think for themselves. I just want them to vote for Rand.

 

[WM_in_MO]

I don't care if they think for themselves. I just want them to vote for Rand.

They won't unless they think for themselves.

You aren't going to get the people who issue the order to the sheep, they are bought and paid for.

One would think after the shit we saw in 2012 we would have learned that national elections are largely decided in smoke-filled rooms.
Trying to fight that machine is literally as productive as burning money.

If winning elections is your idea of saving the world (it's not mine) then you should go for the ones you can actually win.

 

[erowe1]

They won't unless they think for themselves.

Because nobody ever let Ron Paul tell them what to think?

 

[WM_in_MO]

Because nobody ever let Ron Paul tell them what to think?

Because he got elected president all three times?

 

[compromise]

I disagree about this. I think there's a huge overlap of their votes, and that within this overlap, a lot would pick Huckabee over Rand.

Rand's path to victory requires that he build a coalition that includes the segment of the GOP that Huckabee appeals to most. He can't win Iowa or the nomination without them.

Santorum is pretty much guaranteed to run. Huck will take far more votes from him, as a fellow social conservative/fiscal moderate than from Rand.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Huckabee running might be pragmatically useful, but the man is the very definition of red-state fascist. His main issue with Bush is that he wasn't enough of a warmonger. He's not an ally of the liberty movement in any way, shape, or form.

 

[compromise]

Huckabee running might be pragmatically useful, but the man is the very definition of red-state fascist. His main issue with Bush is that he wasn't enough of a warmonger. He's not an ally of the liberty movement in any way, shape, or form.

Seems like he's better than Bush if he's criticizing Bush for not using diplomacy with Iran.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Seems like he's better than Bush if he's criticizing Bush for not using diplomacy with Iran.

His even saying that is inconsistent with other things I've read from him. I'll have to look into it some more.

 

[James Madison]

All of that is probably true except for "kill the gays."

That last one was a half-true/half-joke comment. The rest are completely true, though.

 

[erowe1]

Santorum is pretty much guaranteed to run. Huck will take far more votes from him, as a fellow social conservative/fiscal moderate than from Rand.

If Huck runs, then Santorum is not going to survive even to be in the Iowa caucuses. Santorum is not nearly as great of a threat to Rand as Huck is.

Granted, Santorum will set his sights on Rand more, and constantly attack him. But he won't be as effective as syphoning off his support as Huck will. Without Huck, Santorum will fight Rand for the socon vote, and Rand will demolish him. Being a fiscal moderate is not a selling point for either him or Huck. Both of them run from that in the GOP primaries. And Rand in the race will make it harder for them to shake that. That said, Huck will be huge, and his support will come from places Rand needs.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Santorum is completely unelectable. If Huckabee runs then hopefully Santorum does as well so he can divide the evangelical vote, because if Huckabee runs Rand isn't winning the evangelicals.

 

[WM_in_MO]

Santorum is completely unelectable. If Huckabee runs then hopefully Santorum does as well so he can divide the evangelical vote, because if Huckabee runs Rand isn't winning the evangelicals.

Yet both of them will receive media attention equal or greater than that received by Rand.