2016 Presidential Election Candidates

Posted by LaissezFaire 9 years, 7 months ago to Politics
56 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Which presidential candidate for next year's election has the most Objectivist views? Which are you supporting? I think all of the GOP candidates have both good and bad qualities.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 11
    Posted by SaltyDog 9 years, 7 months ago
    There's no shortage of people in America who are smart enough and honest enough to do an outstanding job as President. Unfortunately, the fact that they're that smart and honest means that they're also smart and honest enough to know that they want no part of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by coaldigger 9 years, 7 months ago
      I have said the same thing, yet most of the founding fathers felt they had better things to do, disliked the sting of criticism in public service, but accepted the role as their duty to the principle. Our contemporary smart guys have mostly skipped over the principle part.

      I am not religious but definitely think that we need a moral code to live by. Although imperfect, religion has provided a moral code for the intellectually lazy. It is fine, even preferable, to move away from altruistic faith but with no moral compass at all, we are asking for disaster. Our intelligence is what allows us to be free and not a danger to ourselves. Without it we are blindly running around oblivious to objects with which we are sure to collide.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Animal 9 years, 7 months ago
      Some years back, I was really involved in local politics (I travel too much now) and was a Republican precinct captain in the neighborhood we lived in at the time. Our State Representative (who later became Governor Bill Owens) approached me about running for an at-large City Council seat, noting that the party didn't have enough good candidates.

      I turned the offer down, and told Bill that as opposed to elected office that "I'd rather shovel shit. It smells better, and shoveling shit is at least honest work."

      My guess is that many capable people feel the same way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
    From http://ballotpedia.org/Possible_presiden...

    I like Scott Walker so far (even though he hasn't officially declared). I would also vote for Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

    I'm dubious on Ben Carson, but I think he'd make an excellent Surgeon General and I'd love to put him in charge of the VA. I'm also on the fence regarding Marco Rubio: his gaffes on immigration are a high hurdle for me.

    I wouldn't vote for Carly Fiorina (I used to work at HP). Nor would I vote for Huckabee (he split the Primary voters in 2008, allowing McCain to get the nomination). He's the one person I blame most (aside from a complicit press) for giving us eight years of Obama.

    Others should they run:
    Chris Christie. Not just no but ____ no!
    Jeb Bush. Even more ____ no!
    Bobby Jindal (Governor of Louisiana) - Way yes! This guy gets it. I don't think he'll run yet, though.
    Would also vote for Nikki Haley or Rick Perry. Can't see anyone else on the list I'd even think twice about.

    Anyone with a (D) by their name is an automatic "when ____ freezes over".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 9 years, 7 months ago
      I can second Walker. He's really not a politician although he seems to be learning how to be. He seems honest, he mostly ignores the negative media and he accomplished a lot in Wisconsin while being harassed by all those bused in demonstrators. Results are what we need, someone to get rid of much of the government, like getting rid of the unions that protect the criminals like Lois and the others. I look at unions for government employees as just another form of democrats, against the workers, mostly interested in lining their own pockets. And a second on Surgeon General Carson.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 7 months ago
      I think I prefer, in this order

      Ted Cruz
      Scott Walker
      Rand Paul

      As I have learned more about Scott Walker he has moved up the list. I think any of these three have the ability and will to improve things.

      I like Ted Cruze for his ability to debate issues and back up his arguments with facts.

      I like Scott Walkers record as governor

      I like Rand Paul but think he does not have the Charisma needed to lead in today world. He is more valuable as a legislator.

      A side of me likes Walker best because we keep Cruz in congress and don't risk a seat to falling to a Democrat or a party republican.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by IamTheBeav 9 years, 7 months ago
        Agreed on every point but one. I live in Texas. There is exactly ZERO chance a Democrat could win Cruz's seat. Party Republican, i.e. Dem in disguise maybe, but no chance for anyone with D after their name in Texas. As for your preferred order, I agree 100% and exactly the same reasons.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 7 months ago
          The low probability of a party republican getting the seat is why Cruz is #1, if it were higher I would have to move to Walker for my preferred candidate.

          I am also of the opinion that Cruz and Lee have plans they are working together and the alliance they have formed (and likely friendship) would be exceptionally helpful to Cruz in the white house.

          Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are the two most solid members of the senate today and I think they may just be able to really do something.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      blarman, great reply! I'm curious why you would eliminate Carly F because you used to work for HP. Is there something in particular she does/did as a leader there that is a turn off? She strikes me as very sharp in the interviews I've seen lately, so am intrigued, but additional insight would be helpful.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 7 months ago
        So I'll give you her history and you can make your own conclusions.

        1. Her degree was in History yet somehow she managed to finagle her way into being CEO of Lucent Technologies (a tech firm that made telecomm equipment). She rose to power just as Lucent was making huge profits and then bailed out after two years to take the job at HP after having been groomed by Lou Platt (HP's then-time CEO). Lucent plunged immediately afterward into irrelevancy. Note: It takes about two years for a CEO's policies to fully take effect.
        2. After coming on board at HP, she simultaneously changed the name of the company to HP Invent and at the same time oversaw a slashing in the R&D departments in order to beef up flagging profitability. She poured a ton of money into marketing (her forte) and gutted new product development budgets. To give you an idea how far she went, when the company was run by Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard, they mandated that 12% of gross revenues be put back into the R&D of the next product lines. Under Carly that dipped to below 2%. She cancelled all their research agreements with well-known universities in California who were working on things like nanotechnology before it was cool.
        3. She purchased two brand new corporate jets at a time when corporate profits were slim and the stock price was stagnant - and they already had two! These were $15 million each and for reserved use - hers. At the same time, she layed off 5000 people (her first round of layoffs). At that time, a typical employee at my plant was probably making $75K. You can do the math.
        4. She basically blackmailed a bank into supporting the buyout of Compaq, from which she made $40 million in direct pay from the merger and which she openly declared would be going into her war chest as a future politician. The Compaq CEO made another $30 million and then moved on. The merger tanked HP's stock price, and all HP really got out of it was egg on their face and Compaq's server business. If they would have waited even a year - and preferrably two - they could have paid 1/10th the price or less for the same assets - Compaq was already on its way down. And it wasn't as if other companies were in a bidding war for Compaq's assets. In the end it just made HP Compaq #1 (instead of #2 in server sales - Compaq was #1) and #1 in PC Sales (Dell was #1). Both of these were short-lived, however, as Dell soon overtook HP in both and it has been back and forth ever since. HP used to be the only name in the game in printers, but now even I would rather buy a Brother than an HP because HP's quality has sunk so far.
        5. Following the merger, HP layed off 15,000 people just from HP alone. But it specifically targeted those who were within five years of retirement because HP's hiring policy had been that a retiree from HP was guaranteed health insurance benefits for life. They made sure to throw in just enough people to make it hard to prosecute in court, but everyone knew what they were doing and why because they wrote in a non-litigation clause into the separation package. My father was one of the casualties after just having been treated for cancer. This was especially egregious because during HP's earlier hard times - which included the disintegration of DMD, they would relocate and retrain their employees and only lay them off if there was no other choice.
        6. Under Hewlett/Packard, the bonus program extended to every HP employee no matter what their job description. I knew janitors that got quarterly bonuses that made all the difference to them. Under Lou Platt (and some of his disastrous decisions regarding Disc Memory Division), the bonus program was restricted to just managers. Under Carly, that program was further restricted to just VP-level employees and above.
        7. Carly Fiorina completely destroyed the HP Way. She turned the greatest tech company in history into nothing more than an consumer electronics manufacturer.
        8. She was fired. No matter how she wants to try to spin her story at HP, it ended in failure. She got paid a lot for failure, no doubt, but never let her tell you that she was successful at either Lucent OR HP because the facts say otherwise. She left neither company stronger for her "leadership".
        9. She couldn't even defeat Barbara Boxer for a Senate Seat despite out-spending her.

        Carly Fiorina is a politician. I was there while she was CEO and my father worked at HP for 22 years before his ouster at her hand. She's no more a producer than James Taggart. She has nothing to crow about that anyone with a little Google search help can absolutely destroy. She'd get blown out of the water by Hillary Clinton because everyone already knows Hillary didn't accomplish anything, while all of Carly's "achievements" were nothing more than political opportunism at the expense of the company's long-term (sound familiar at all?).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 4 months ago
          Thank you for confirming from another view how pathetic Carly was.

          I assume then you remember the Fusion Project, AND the triage centers to address all the screw up from their IT merging project..

          I was a TC3/PM5 in the Storage Practice, and had a very different viewpoint from a different angle, and if you combine all the angles, not matter how you cut it, HP's problems had NOTHING to do with the tech bubble bursting.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 4 months ago
            Oh and how about when she engaged Eagle Transportation that lost more shipments than they delivered...I had one project where not only did Eagle lose it, when we found it about 30 million in Storage was literally destroyed.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          Wow - very interesting. Thanks for such a thorough history lesson in Carly-gate! It's good to know these things. After knowing this, I concur it would be a huge mistake to make her the GOP candidate.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
    Unfortunately, the better question is likely to be "Which presidential election candidates are tolerable?"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 9 years, 7 months ago
      True, jbrenner. Unfortunate, but true. I think Paul, is probably at this time the most in line with Objectivist principles, but his odds of being elected are not as good as others. I hope this will change. I am still hoping someone will really impress me regardless of party or elect-ability for whom I could vote for with my head held high.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IamTheBeav 9 years, 7 months ago
      Not for me. I refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils. That may come off as somewhat disingenuous given that I live in Texas (always gonna be the GOP candidate vs. Obama/Bill/Hillary/Elizabeth/etc. or any other Dem for that matter). With the electoral college, there's no risk that my non vote will somehow be a vote for the other guy in this state.

      That said, I will write in a name of my choosing before I will vote for another progressive RINO scumbag. I am proud to say that I did not vote for McCain or Romney

      As for this one coming up, I would cast a vote for Cruz, Walker, Paul, and maybe a couple others (Haley, Jindal, for instance). I will NOT vote for Jeb, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, etc. under any circumstances.

      Put another way, The RNC does not have a blank check when it comes to my vote. That is reserved strictly for me and my best judgement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
        McCain and Romney were 10th and 9th out of those running in 2008 for me. I voted for neither. I would vote for those you would vote for and not vote for those you would not vote for.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
      Understood - we need tolerable, but we also need electability. Short of electability, we'll end up with another Dem. In the primary, yes, we should vote according to which candidate is aligned most with our views, but in the general election, we're really just aiming for beating the socialists.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jdg 9 years, 7 months ago
        If the GOP doesn't nominate someone tolerable (Rand Paul, Walker, Carson, Cruz in that order) then I'll vote for the Libertarian Party candidate and to hell with them. I'd rather see Hillary win than allow another RINO to stain the party's reputation and promise, and that means anybody but those four. "Electability" does no one any good if it means electing someone who will continue to move the ball toward the wrong end zone (meaning increase federal spending, even a tiny bit).
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 7 months ago
          I'm just saying that if the candidate is moving the ball toward the right end zone, just not as fast as we here in the Gulch would like, that is better than a Dem., who would without question move it toward the wrong endzone. But I understand your point, RINOs are a huge problem.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
        In the general election, I have refused to vote for Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush, Bush, McCain, and Romney because all have been intolerable. I would rather have full-fledged socialists and get the pain over than a protracted decline toward a country I cannot tolerate.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 7 months ago
    I propose an amendment to add "None of the Above" to all ballots. If NOTA wins an election, then that jurisdiction gets to declare its freedom from the tyrannical power wielded by other jurisdictions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 7 months ago
    With the exception of his religiosity, I think Ted Cruz comes the closest to expressing Objectivist views. However, Obama has been so bad, and Hillary could well be worse, that it makes almost anyone look good by comparison. We shall see as the filtering takes place up until '16.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago
    The Government Party will supply two candidates for President and two candidates for Vice President. All four and their two sub groups Democrat and Republican believe firmly in the objective of Government controlling citizens.

    Membership in either one is a non starter. They have had their chance for many decades and failed each and every time. How many new federal police agencies started by each since there were four then three in 1980, (And I really hate the barrage of propaganda.) Sorry..I don't serve the party and don't subscribe to the lesser of two evils statement. Supporting evil only proves the chooser is a supporter of evil.

    When it's all done ho hum tweedle whomever will, as usual, set campaign rhetoric aside and continue in the same fashion. Carville-ests get behind me.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 7 months ago
      Who would I vote for?

      Anyone who puts citizens controlling government first and government controlling citizens last.

      Anyone who keeps one foot in the sacred ground of the Constitution.

      Anyone who seeks to make changes - legally.

      Fat chance...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 9 years, 7 months ago
    Mr. Virtual President, of course. Bill Whittle. Too bad he doesn't qualify. Just short of being an Objectivist too.

    We need;
    An Objectivist with balls AND charisma. And enjoys wrestling with pigs.

    Back to reality.
    Rand Paul or Ted Cruze would at least slow down the "progress" we have been making so much of.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 7 months ago
    I think what we want is gridlock. Anyone who wants to be a candidate in this day and age HAS to pander to enough contributors in order to be able to pander to the electorate in the hopes of getting enough votes. Our system is based on cronyism now- each subgroup wants goodies from the others. The republicans have their subgroups that want goodies for them, and so do the democrats who wants different goodies for them. With gridlock, maybe there will be no change and no one can get goodies courtesy of the other groups !! It wont get better, but it wont get worse either, like it was with Obamacare when Obama ruled the roost
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 9 years, 7 months ago
    Ted Cruz did read from Atlas Shrugged during his filibuster so clearly he is aware of her writings. I agree if he is a true Objectivist he would NOT be in government. But he does strike me as a person with solid fundamentals and will shoot from the hip and tell it like it is. Iran may think twice about taking him on with the nuke deal and shipping lanes. Cruz / Carson ticket is my ideal.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by IamTheBeav 9 years, 7 months ago
    I don't know how to articulate how these guys fit the Objectionist mold, but there are 3 stand out names that I could readily support for whatever office they want to run for.

    For President, gimme Ted Cruz. He just gets it, and he's got a spine. Unlike many of the gutless wimps that stand for nothing that the GOP has been running for president since 1988, Cruz knows exactly what he's about. Although he may not be as popular (defined by the main stream media) as others, Ted Cruz is, in my opinion, a natural born leader. The only knock I have on Cruz is his lack of executive leadership on the resume, but I can live with that from him. I just think he is the real deal.

    Next, for Cruz's running mate, gimme Scott Walker. Where Cruz has no executive position on the resume, Walker does in spades. To do what he has done in deep blue Wisconsin with billions of outside dollars working against him at every step is spectacular. Like Cruz, this guy knows exactly what he's about, and he doesn't compromise. There is no go along to get along with either of these two.

    As an aside, I do admire one thing about President Obama. While I despise everything about the man and his politics, I do admire the fact that he is willing to fight for what he believes in, no matter how ____ed up it may be. If we are ever going to reverse this progressive nightmare, we need people with passion that runs deep and that will fight every bit as fervently as Obama does for his policies. I think Ted Cruz and Scott Walker are easily the cream of the crop when it comes to this, and that is why those two are essentially 1A and 1B on my list. Ideally, Cruz at the top of the ticket (more articulate) and Walker at VP, but I could easily support that ticket in reverse order as well.

    The third candidate that is an absolute beacon for me is Rand Paul. I admire everything about this man's politics. Even on the very few issues where we disagree, I understand the principles driving his mindset, and that is something I can wholeheartedly respect. The reason I would choose to support Cruz/Walker as President/VP is because I think Rand fails the leadership/charisma test. If you look at his words on paper, he's the man. If you listen to him speak or debate, he comes off as whiny to me. Don't get me wrong, he's make a great Senate Majority Leader, with someone of courser material behind him as whip, but he just comes up short in the "I'm gonna ram this legislative reform down your GD throat whether you like it or not" test to me. I have no doubt he'd cut government spending and vote the right way every time in the Senate, but he just doesn't come off as bully enough for the presidential bully pulpit in my opinion. He's a rock star in the Senate, but come back and talk to me in 16 years about the White House when he's got some thicker hide.

    As for the others:
    Ben Carson - extremely impressive man in his profession, but we differ on too many things politically.

    Bobby Jindal - A lot to like about this guy, but like Rand Paul, not quite ready for prime time.

    Rick Perry - He comes off as a dumbass good ole boy when he speaks, but there's no denying that Texas has it going on in terms of economic growth. I am a Texan and a Aggie (as is Rick Perry), and I sincerely thank him for his service to my state, but I can think of 4 or 5 others I'd rather see as president. Now, gimme Rick Perry as Ted Cruz's replacement (or better yet, John Cornyn's) in the Senate, and he gets my vote in a half a nanosecond.

    Chris Christie - I get a scuzzy feeling about this guy. I do admire his tenacity and aggression toward the liberal media in New Jersey, but he strikes me as a RINO with some Tea Party snarkiness mixed in. The Bridgegate thing is pretty lousy as well. I would stay home before I would cast a vote for Chris Christie.

    Carly Fiorina - I need to learn more, but she strikes me alot like Ben Carson. Somewhat impressive in her personal life but not especially right for the job in DC. If I though Dr. Carson were the best man for the job, I would support him in a second. Same goes for Ms. Fiorina. In both cases though, it just feels like the RNC is grasping at straws to find acceptable tokens to run as GOP candidates. I don't care one way or the other about who the first woman president or GOP black president is. I don't care that Ted Cruz is a Cuban/Canadian/American hybrid. I don't care that Bobby Jindal's family came from India. None of that matters to me in the least.

    Marco Rubio - I love him as a Senator, but like Rick Perry, I don't want him as my president. Not a horrible candidate, but several better choices to pick from over Rubio.

    Nikki Haley - There's a lot to admire about Nikki Haley. I could see myself casting a vote for her if she won the primary, but Cruz/Walker get my support up to that point.

    Jeb Bush - Read my lips, "_____ NO!!!" You can keep your progressive policies and your stategerie. I just want my country back.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Terrylutz3682 9 years, 7 months ago
    I would vote for Donald Trump. He has name recognition and is a true capitalist. He would self finance and therefore be beholden to no one. He knows how to manage, negotiate, and get things done. He would stop China's currency manipulation. He knows how to win.

    He is the only candidate that could really make a difference. He would be a breath of fresh air. Ok you have to get past his ego but he is proud of himself as he should be. Unfortunately the Republican establishment will never let him win the primary unless there is huge support for him. They will probably throw a tisy fit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by KCLiberty 9 years, 7 months ago
    WOW. I'm actually stunned to see so many here willing to vote for any of those corporatist/collectivist/Federal Reserve Whores. I've never voted for a Republican or Democrat for federal office - there's never been one who had the slightest leaning towards objectivism, individualism, or even capitalism, any type of capitalism. You have to face it, we are living inside Mussolini's wet dream.

    Voting for any of them (possible exception of Rand Paul - yet to see) is no different than putting a "Wesley Mooch 2016" bumper sticker on your car.

    I worked my tail off for Ron Paul - who does fit the bill. Maybe not a pure objectivist because of some of his religious views. But, he is the only one in my life so far that believed in individual liberty and rights. And, he is the only one not willing to bomb little brown children because their parents believe in a different magic sky daddy.

    Plus - the RNC and DNC have already chosen their candidates. Most likely even the presidency itself has already been decided.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 7 months ago
    NONE, until I know who they are picking for VP.

    Rand Paul, has some "issues"
    Scott Walker, Many good points, but too much of a politician
    Ted Cruz: Too inconsistent for me and waffles too much

    Carly Fiorina, ARGHHHhhh, if she ends up GOP, or VP I will just vote HIllary.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 4 months ago
      Although Carly has her flaws (from leadership style during her HP days mainly), under no circumstance would I cast a vote for Hellery over Carly if it came down to those two. Hellery would result in more of the same ever-expanding government crap we've seen over the last 7 yrs.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by gcarl615 9 years, 7 months ago
    I would vote for a Scott Walker/Marko Rubio ticket. I lived in Wisconsin during his first win and rewin. I liked the way he stayed focused and on track. I like Rubio for VP, ben carson for Surgion General and Huckabe for the next Supreme Court Justice when Ruth the commie goes away.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by IamTheBeav 9 years, 7 months ago
      Not for nothin' but I'd prefer Andrew Napolitano for SCOTUS. I like Huckabee just fine as an all around decent guy, but that simply qualifies him for the job he has now on TV as a talking head.

      As far as Carson for Surgeon General, I think he'd be the ideal pick except for one thing. Why exactly do we have a Surgeon General anyway? Dr. Oz has more influence over how we think about medicine than whoever the current SG is. I don't really understand the need for the government to have a paid policy shill in that particular position other than to be the go to guy for Congress to grill the next time we get hit with the scourge of Equine Flu or Siamese Fever or whatever.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo