Bobby Jindal 2012

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sativamonk78, Feb 18, 2009.

  1. #1 sativamonk78, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
    Some say in a political ploy to throw his hat into the mix as a presidential candidate in 2012, Bobby Jindal, Governor of the great state of Louisiana is showing signals that he is not going to accept the stimulus package for his state.

    Now you might say that this is idiotic or asinine, but I might add in a state ravaged by hurricanes, a deficit, and overall shitty times, Bobby Jindal has totally renovated his health care program in his state to offer better service, while decreasing costs.

    More of a mathematician than a politician, Mr. Jindal goes about his executive orders more like an accountant than a governor. Louisiana under Obama stimulus alloted a large sum of 4 billion that he will more than likely deny.

    Also Bobby is not a Neo-conservative, he has gone his entire career furthering himself from them, first he turned down Bush to be his health care secretary then he turned down McCain as vice presidential nominee(wonder why we got stuck with Palin).

    In my opinion he is the kind of change America needs, he graduated from Yale law school and Havard Medical school with high honors.

    Talking about making government smaller is one thing, but actually doing it while creating a better in the long run is the kind of thing all of America needs.

  2. Withering away... election after election after election... the lie of power is still there.
  3. wait, how old is he?
  4. #4 sativamonk78, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
    I did my math wrong, he is 37, you only have to be 35.
    Pessimistic are we? I thought you said we need more Yin in our politics, cheer up bud.
  5. seems better than any rep. nominee i've seen recently
  6. I think Jindal would do well against Obama in 2012, especially if people get sick of all the spending. He is a fresh face that has the qualities of a good leader (at least from what I've seen about him). I don't agree with him on most social issues, but I'd vote for him over anyone save for a Ron Paul or a fringe lunatic libertarian. :D

    At least at the moment.
  7. IF he runs for the president, he'll probably be the youngest president. If he wins.
    I need get to know him more..... If ron paul is running for president, I'll vote him over anybody, any day.

    I think it time for oldies people to get the fuck out and let new gen come in. They will do much better then people who stick to 20th century rules.
  8. #8 sativamonk78, Feb 18, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2009
    The only negative I have ever really heard about the guy was something along the lines, his parents thought there sister was possessed so they asked for an exorcism. That was when he was younger to my knowledge, and is not the worst thing in the world. He used to be a Hindu, but he converted to Christianity when he came to America.

    I would love Ron Paul to be on the ballot, but I fear he is not realistic.

    [ame=""]YouTube - Bobby Jindal for President, 2012 (short)[/ame]
    (Cheesy music aside)

    Jindal was a rhode scholar and attended Ivy league, he has the smarts and he's done a great job in his state.
  9. How can he come to America when he was born in Louisiana?

    And if he hadn't been born here, he'd be an even less realistic candidate than Ron Paul. Ron Paul suffers from the slight problem of being widely perceived as a wackaloon. Jindal would suffer from the slight problem of not even being eligible to run if he hadn't been born in the US.
  10. #10 sikander, Feb 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2009
    I looked up Jindal on Wikipedia. May I ask what makes him special as a conservative?

    He supports teaching ID[1], he voted for REAL ID[2], and recently signed a bill authorizing Louisiana to chemically castrate (or, at the court's discretion, physically castrate!) sex offenders. Now, chemical castration is itself on the knife-edge of a "cruel and unusual punishment" and I'd say its only redeeming feature is that it isn't permanent, but if fucking physical castration doesn't count as cruel or unusual I don't know what does.

    He also opposes same-sex marriage and voted in favor of the MCA. So how is he significantly different than your average conservative politician?
  11. After reading his Wikipedia page, it seems he was born in Louisiana, his parents were immigrants. He was born here, I misspoke.

    For anymore information, feel free to read his Wikipedia entry or his blog.

    Also if he were to win in 2012, he would be the second catholic president. Obama got a lot of Catholic votes, some might say Jindal would have a leg up on those votes, but who really wants to speculate:D

  12. If he is for this castration, though, I'm sorry, it's over already.
  13. What castration do you speak of?

    The not accepting the stimulus?

  14. No, read sikander's last post.
  15. #15 sativamonk78, Feb 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2009
    Well most of those have to do with ethics, I mean even Ron Paul has pretty high ethics, I don't get what you mean run of the mill conservative.

    He is a Rhode scholar, graduated from Yale and Harvard, has a very high approval rating in his state, since he has become governor fortune 500 companies have been flocking to Louisiana, he has handled the natural disaster and deficit in his state very well and only has had 1 political slip-up.

    Does he have to be significantly different to be worth a damn?

    As for the castration, those were to my knowledge violent sex offenders, that would surely decrease the number of violently sexual crimes. I don't disagree with that one at all.
  16. How about voting yes on making the patriot act permanent? Or wanting to teach intelligent design at public schools? He seems to be pretty much just a above par average politician, what is supposed to make him so special?
  17. #17 sativamonk78, Feb 19, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2009
    Look I would love to have wished him vote against the patriot act, but you guys are asking for something your not going to get. The fact is the majority of America supports the patriot act, these politicians are voting this way because they want to fuck us over, they vote this way because there constituents want this.

    The fact of the matter is, he is arguably one of the smartest politicians out there and he has cut his budget extensively while offering better health care services. All while dealing with one of the biggest hurricanes this country has ever seen, now if that does not further him from the competition, I give up.

    If you get your personnel rights taken away from you from the patriot act, I suggest go to supreme court, politicians are only as good as the world allows them to be.

    The world doesn't like you, the world is against you, get over it.
  18. I guess perhaps I assumed you'd to be more in favor of the conservatism that's closer to libertarianism since you seem to like Ron Paul, but votes in favor of the Military Commissions Act, making the PATRIOT ACT permanent, and for the REAL ID clusterfuck doesn't jive with my understanding of what someone who respects civil liberties would do.
    Well, you did claim he was different than neoconservatives. I didn't find much to support that... he supports teaching ID, doesn't seem to care too much about civil liberties, opposes gay rights, and opposes reproductive rights. I can't support any of those positions.
    In this case I have to disagree. I think you have to also consider what's humane treatment for the offender. If all you looked at was how to reduce violent sex offenses, well, you could also just kill them all, but nobody supports that because that's insane. I take the same view of castration- rape is morally repugnant, and claiming a right to someone's sexual organs because they misused them also strikes me as morally repugnant.

    Do you have data to back you up? The majority of America might have been supporting the PATRIOT ACT when it was introduced right after 9/11 and everyone was soiling their pants in unadulterated terror from both the attacks and the insane scaremongering the government and media were engaging in, but I have a hard time believing that after they realized the terror threat was wildly overblown they still supported it. Power grabs like the PATRIOT ACT generally happen in the wake of things that scare people shitless because if you scare people enough and then tell them you know the way to safety they'll let you do anything.
  19. I love Ron Paul, the problem with him was frankly he did not do enough to make himself electable, most people don't know what the fed is, just by hammering the point that he made constantly during his campaign about the fed destroying the dollar he alienated himself from a large segment of the voting population. Look if I feel my rights are being taken away from me from the patriot act and real id I will go to the supreme court. Frankly the laws are in place but I haven't personally been effected, that must mean these things are being used the way these people proposed them. Regardless I would vote for Ron over Bobby on the fact that given the chance Ron appeals to me, but Ron does not appeal to other people.

    If these things are being used the way people especially libertarians call fowl, they would had been seen by the supreme court. Frankly that has not happened.
    Ron Paul was very anti-abortions, I don't understand this disconnect buddy. Because the man apposes the patriot act and real id, his stance on abortion is ok?

    What about Ron Paul on the death penalty, I find that a much more harsh. He supports it to my knowledge on a state level, but opposes the federal death penalty.

    That being said I also support the death penalty, but I think you are reaching here.
    Yay 59% Nay 39%
    Yay 55% Nay 46%
    Yay 50% Nay 46%

    Now take in mind these are polls from probably only 1000 people if that, take it or leave it, there is a very defined curve dot chart. If you can convince 10% to change there views on that, the politicians will follow suit I promise.

    Politicians are only as good as the majority allows them to be, convince the populous and your ideas are bar none.
  20. #20 sikander, Feb 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 20, 2009
    Getting the Supremes to hear something is surprisingly hard. Getting something heard in state court is a years-long process, I can't imagine how arduous navigating federal appellate courts would be. And really, the kinds of cases where you can go directly to the Supreme Court are very rare and I don't think would crop up in legal challenges to laws like MCA or USA PATRIOT ACT. Plus, if you piss off the wrong judge along the way they can dismiss your appeal with prejudice, meaning you can't appeal it again.

    Also, parts of the MCA have been challenged in the Supreme Court. See Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and, while the Supreme Court declined to hear theme, Boumediene v. Bush, and al-Odah v. United States.

    Regarding REAL ID, well, actually many states have outright stated they're not going to comply and the U.S. has postponed the compliance deadlines several times already. We're not going to hear about that again until at least 2011, when they'll probably extend the deadline again.

    To be perfectly honest, you caught me in a mistake. I don't like Paul's stance on abortion and if I'd been paying more attention I wouldn't have mentioned it against Jindal.

    Since we're on the topic, however, I think Paul was clear about at least leaving abortion up to the states even though he's personally against it. It's kind of moot for me anyways. I'm not a fan of Paul, I just think that in terms of civil rights he's on the whole better than Jindal.
    What I was getting at is that we evidently consider the rights of the offender when we punish them. If we didn't, we could kill them all and never worry about violent crime again. We respect sex offenders' right to life even though they're violent criminals and pose a threat to innocent citizens. So why is it okay to throw away their protections against cruel and unusual punishments like castration?
    Those are some surprising and depressing numbers, especially the ABC poll which found that less than half of people polled had even heard of the damn Act in 2005.

    They're also 3-4 years old. I wonder if there's newer data out there?

Share This Page