stlouiedipalma;1041265 wrote: It will make for some good political spin from the Tea Party obstructionists, but it won't change a thing.

Those pesky Tea Partiers, trying to obstruct the government from running the debt to $20 TRILLION in another couple years and totally wiping out any hope of prosperity for the next 2 generations ...... dang them.

Cleveland Buck;1041374 wrote:General election polls mean nothing when they are a year before the election. Current polls wouldn't have Gingrich leading anyone anywhere.

They are current polls...two weeks old.

I don't think any of the current crop of Republicans will beat Obama, you're forgetting that he in addition to almost a billion dollars (actually $750,000,000) to spend to be elected to a $400,000/yr. job that he has the entire media behind him as well. I being a Republican am very disappointed because frankly these guys are a joke and in my opinion no better than Obama but in fact more of the same. Bachman was the best candidate but the media quickly dismissed her as a right wing loon with no foreign policy experience as opposed to the left wing loon with no foreign policy experience that we have now. At 58 yeras old I have very little confidence that I will live long enough to ever see a good man (or woman) in the White House again, I feel sorry for our children who will bear the debt of the ignorance and greed of the last 25 years. We need to elect real people to Congress and the Presidency not career politicions who have never had a real job in there life and don't understand (or care) about the day to day struggle of the average Joe. If elected on day 1 I would put all Washington (Senate, House, President) on Social Security system for their retirement plan and then see how fast it gets fixed. The same would work for Health Care and most other domestic issues. These turds don't care because it doesn't affect them or their families and why do they deserve to have special benefits beyond what you and I have? If we all did our jobs as poorly as Washington we would have been shut down years ago. We are all by definition insane as we keep electing the same dumbasses to office and expect different results. Wake up people vote all these bastards out until we get congressmen and Presidents who represent the people of this country and not just their political party. Again defeating Obama this year has about a 0% chance of success because of 1) No republican candidates that amount to anything running against him 2) The millions of votes from the people looking for a handout (not a hand up) who know that the Dems. are the handout kings. 3) The socialist media who will lead his campaign and try to make any opposition appear foolish. 4) Too many people who have tired of our political process or just don't give a damn enough to vote.

0311sdp;1041679 wrote:I don't think any of the current crop of Republicans will beat Obama, you're forgetting that he in addition to almost a billion dollars (actually $750,000,000) to spend to be elected to a $400,000/yr. job that he has the entire media behind him as well. I being a Republican am very disappointed because frankly these guys are a joke and in my opinion no better than Obama but in fact more of the same. Bachman was the best candidate but the media quickly dismissed her as a right wing loon with no foreign policy experience as opposed to the left wing loon with no foreign policy experience that we have now. At 58 yeras old I have very little confidence that I will live long enough to ever see a good man (or woman) in the White House again, I feel sorry for our children who will bear the debt of the ignorance and greed of the last 25 years. We need to elect real people to Congress and the Presidency not career politicions who have never had a real job in there life and don't understand (or care) about the day to day struggle of the average Joe. If elected on day 1 I would put all Washington (Senate, House, President) on Social Security system for their retirement plan and then see how fast it gets fixed. The same would work for Health Care and most other domestic issues. These turds don't care because it doesn't affect them or their families and why do they deserve to have special benefits beyond what you and I have? If we all did our jobs as poorly as Washington we would have been shut down years ago. We are all by definition insane as we keep electing the same dumbasses to office and expect different results. Wake up people vote all these bastards out until we get congressmen and Presidents who represent the people of this country and not just their political party. Again defeating Obama this year has about a 0% chance of success because of 1) No republican candidates that amount to anything running against him 2) The millions of votes from the people looking for a handout (not a hand up) who know that the Dems. are the handout kings. 3) The socialist media who will lead his campaign and try to make any opposition appear foolish. 4) Too many people who have tired of our political process or just don't give a damn enough to vote.

I'm 55 and your analysis is spot on.

Cleveland Buck;1040917 wrote:In a free market the cost of entry would not be impossibly high. You wouldn't have burdensome regulations and inflated fuel and input prices. You wouldn't have government enforced union wages. A free market by definition uses sound money. You can't have a free market with a central planner controlling interest rates and printing money out of thin air. Not only would prices plummet for consumers, they would plummet for businesses too.

False. Free market would not magically make it easier to enter into the airline business.

fish82;1041369 wrote:Both Mittens and Newt are currently polling 3-5 points ahead of Bam in the 13 swing states that will decide the election. Paul leads Bam in none of them. Your "Paul is the only one who can win" schtick is both wrong and tiresome.

Polls are always, always right.

I Wear Pants;1042812 wrote:Polls are always, always right.

No, they're not. They are however, a more accurate barometer then pulling the "Paul is the only one who can win" schtick out of your ass every day.

fish82;1042899 wrote:No, they're not. They are however, a more accurate barometer then pulling the "Paul is the only one who can win" schtick out of your ass every day.

True. Paul is NOT the only one who can beat Obama. As offensive as the field of Repub candidates is, ANY of them can beat Obama unless the economy makes a dramatic turn for the better over the next 10 months. Obama, on the other hand, has a good chance of being re-elected, regardless of the economy, if the Paulists assist him in doing so.

I do get tired of the fact that if Paul doesnt get nominated, we have to vote for the repub nominee or we are supporting Obama. The truth is Obama is really doing the same thing as bush did. Bailouts, wars, violation of rights(patriot act vs ndaa), big govt programs.

Most Paul supporters believe that there is absolutey no difference between obama and newt,romney,santorum etc... So to me why should i vote for someone I dont like or agree with.

I Wear Pants;1042811 wrote:False. Free market would not magically make it easier to enter into the airline business.

Actually it would. Lower prices make it easier to enter any business.

pmoney25;1043634 wrote:Most Paul supporters believe that there is absolutey no difference between obama and newt,romney,santorum etc... So to me why should i vote for someone I dont like or agree with.

Don't delude yourself...if you don't support the eventual Repub nominee (whoever that might be) and you (a) don't vote, (b) write-in Ron Paul or (c) vote for a third party candidate, you are in fact giving Obama a much better chance of being re-elected.

While Obama may be "doing the same thing as Bush did" he's taken it to a whole new level.

I'll take more of what Bush did any day over what Obama is doing even if it's Romney, Gingrich, etc.

It sucks I admit but I'm choosing to lessen the insanity rather than insure it continues at full-force.

By all means....waste your vote. Just don't bitch when Obama's second term takes the insanity to new heights.

0311sdp;1041679 wrote:I don't think any of the current crop of Republicans will beat Obama, you're forgetting that he in addition to almost a billion dollars (actually $750,000,000) to spend to be elected to a $400,000/yr. job that he has the entire media behind him as well. I being a Republican am very disappointed because frankly these guys are a joke and in my opinion no better than Obama but in fact more of the same. Bachman was the best candidate but the media quickly dismissed her as a right wing loon with no foreign policy experience as opposed to the left wing loon with no foreign policy experience that we have now. At 58 yeras old I have very little confidence that I will live long enough to ever see a good man (or woman) in the White House again, I feel sorry for our children who will bear the debt of the ignorance and greed of the last 25 years. We need to elect real people to Congress and the Presidency not career politicions who have never had a real job in there life and don't understand (or care) about the day to day struggle of the average Joe. If elected on day 1 I would put all Washington (Senate, House, President) on Social Security system for their retirement plan and then see how fast it gets fixed. The same would work for Health Care and most other domestic issues. These turds don't care because it doesn't affect them or their families and why do they deserve to have special benefits beyond what you and I have? If we all did our jobs as poorly as Washington we would have been shut down years ago. We are all by definition insane as we keep electing the same dumbasses to office and expect different results. Wake up people vote all these bastards out until we get congressmen and Presidents who represent the people of this country and not just their political party. Again defeating Obama this year has about a 0% chance of success because of 1) No republican candidates that amount to anything running against him 2) The millions of votes from the people looking for a handout (not a hand up) who know that the Dems. are the handout kings. 3) The socialist media who will lead his campaign and try to make any opposition appear foolish. 4) Too many people who have tired of our political process or just don't give a damn enough to vote.

Another Ron Paul supporter has apparently surfaced. Welcome.

Footwedge;1044541 wrote:Another Ron Paul supporter has apparently surfaced. Welcome.

No, I like a lot of the things Paul says but I actually was a Bachman supporter. Mit, even though I'm a Republican, I don't know if I can vote for this guy. I voted 3rd party in 1992 and 1996 (Ross Perot) so that should tell you where I stand but I also know a 3rd party vote this election is the same as a vote for Obama.

0311sdp;1044552 wrote:No, I like a lot of the things Paul says but I actually was a Bachman supporter. Mit, even though I'm a Republican, I don't know if I can vote for this guy. I voted 3rd party in 1992 and 1996 (Ross Perot) so that should tell you where I stand but I also know a 3rd party vote this election is the same as a vote for Obama.

A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. He is no different, and if Paul doesn't get the nomination the Libertarian candidate is going to get 10%+ of the vote meaning Obama wins anyway. The only way to waste your vote is to choose between 2 guys that are almost exactly the same.

Cleveland Buck;1044555 wrote:A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. He is no different, and if Paul doesn't get the nomination the Libertarian candidate is going to get 10%+ of the vote meaning Obama wins anyway. The only way to waste your vote is to choose between 2 guys that are almost exactly the same.

You are correct, the Dems. want to run against Mit or Newt because of all their political baggage. I don't think that Paul is electable, (he doesn't have a Presidential look and the media will eat him alive) Santorum is probably the best candidate left to run against the Obama money machine but as I said, I really don't think any of these guys can win.

Santorum would be slaughtered in a general election. His views assure that zero independants would vote for him. Independants, disgruntled Democrats, and young people generally do not apprecciate his brand of intolerance.

I Wear Pants;1044563 wrote:Santorum would be slaughtered in a general election. His views assure that zero independants would vote for him. Independants, disgruntled Democrats, and young people generally do not apprecciate his brand of intolerance.

What views of intolerance would those be? If you're talking about his views on gay marriage, most Americans I think have that same opinion.

Cleveland Buck;1044555 wrote:A vote for Romney is a vote for Obama. He is no different

That is asinine.

Tobias Fünke;1044601 wrote:That is asinine.

C'mon, Tobias. Get with the program. To the Paulists, anyone other than Dr. Perfect is Obama reincarnate.

believer;1044604 wrote:C'mon, Tobias. Get with the program. To the Paulists, anyone other than Dr. Perfect is Obama reincarnate.

Romney openly tried to position himself to the left of Ted Kennedy when he was running for the Senate. I like Romney (when he's not pretending to be a conservative) and am curious to see how he positions himself after the primaries. He has to pretend to be insane to get the nod so I can forgive him for his actions in the primaries. But, I'm a liberal after all. How you can suggest that someone who tried to prove he was as progressive as the "liberal lion" would not be right there with Obama? You can be sure that a law very similar to Obamacare would have passed had Romney won the presidency in 2008 (but no Republican AG's would be calling it socialism in the federal courts of course because Conservatives let Republicans get away with all the "big government" they want).

You just have a cult-like dislike of Obama who has basically governed like an Eisenhower Republican from the days of Yore.

Romney or Huntsman would make great democratic candidates because the democratic party still has room for moderates. The GOP left them.

BoatShoes;1044820 wrote:Romney openly tried to position himself to the left of Ted Kennedy when he was running for the Senate. I like Romney (when he's not pretending to be a conservative) and am curious to see how he positions himself after the primaries. He has to pretend to be insane to get the nod so I can forgive him for his actions in the primaries. But, I'm a liberal after all. How you can suggest that someone who tried to prove he was as progressive as the "liberal lion" would not be right there with Obama? You can be sure that a law very similar to Obamacare would have passed had Romney won the presidency in 2008 (but no Republican AG's would be calling it socialism in the federal courts of course because Conservatives let Republicans get away with all the "big government" they want).

You just have a cult-like dislike of Obama who has basically governed like an Eisenhower Republican from the days of Yore.

Romney or Huntsman would make great democratic candidates because the democratic party still has room for moderates. The GOP left them.

You're blindly biased if you believe the Ds still have room for moderates. Both parties have moved away from the middle the last few years.

Heck, Clinton started out as very liberal until the Rs took over the House and for political reasons he became a very good moderate.

Bush 2 was all over the place, very conservative during campaign, ultra conservative after 9/11 and then went very moderate when the financial crisis hit.

Obama was as far left as they came during campaign, he wasn't even CLOSE to the center. He got in office and realized some of his idiotic ideas were stupid and has been semi moderate...and many in the democratic party want a "real liberal" to run against him in the primaries because he didn't go full on Marxist like they thought.

The POTUS will always be someone moderate no matter WHAT they run on, because it is not realistically possible to run the executive branch as an extreme liberal or extreme conservative. Even Ron Paul will not be able to run the executive branch as an extreme liberaterian, he would end up more moderate.

In the end it comes down to what type of "moderate" do you want in office. You can vote the extremists into Congress, just look at Pelosi, she's as crazy as anyone currently in office and she'll retire before getting voted out.

jmog;1044880 wrote:You're blindly biased if you believe the Ds still have room for moderates. Both parties have moved away from the middle the last few years.

Heck, Clinton started out as very liberal until the Rs took over the House and for political reasons he became a very good moderate.

Bush 2 was all over the place, very conservative during campaign, ultra conservative after 9/11 and then went very moderate when the financial crisis hit.

Obama was as far left as they came during campaign, he wasn't even CLOSE to the center. He got in office and realized some of his idiotic ideas were stupid and has been semi moderate...and many in the democratic party want a "real liberal" to run against him in the primaries because he didn't go full on Marxist like they thought.

The POTUS will always be someone moderate no matter WHAT they run on, because it is not realistically possible to run the executive branch as an extreme liberal or extreme conservative. Even Ron Paul will not be able to run the executive branch as an extreme liberaterian, he would end up more moderate.

In the end it comes down to what type of "moderate" do you want in office. You can vote the extremists into Congress, just look at Pelosi, she's as crazy as anyone currently in office and she'll retire before getting voted out.

No, the democratic party is much more ideologically diverse than the modern Republican party. You can be an anti-gay marriage democrat, as President Obama is. You can be a pro-life democrat. You can support the death penalty as a democrat. You can believe in free trade as a democrat. You can be an advocate a more interventionist foreign policy as a democrat. The RINO"s acquiesce to hardcore conservatism more so than the Ben Nelson's and Joe Lieberman's of the world commit to more liberal ideas. The entire democratic party almost is surely more conservative than they were prior to Ronald Reagan.

The mainstream GOP is much more rigid these days. If a GOP president were to pass a healthcare plan proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 90's there would be a full on revolt against him/her. Despite their dissatisfaction with Obama, liberals are still with Obama although they may no longer hope for audacity from him.

I highly doubt Ron Paul would be very moderate as President. The man would use his veto pen with unbridled fury. The man is a crusader much more so than a politician. He's a perfect example of the ideological rigidity of the modern GOP echo chamber. Ron Paul is by far the most conservative on every domestic policy issue since Barry Goldwater. He is Tea Party patient zero. Yet, because he doesn't desire in his heart to go to war with Iran this one defect in his ideological composition makes him anathema to a large contingent of Conservatives.

And, also, how can you reconcile your claim that Obama became moderate and reasonable as President and the idea that he must be defeated at all costs in order to stop the ruining of America that many of your conservative brethren share? How can he be the worst president since WWII but also be a reasonable moderate...and if he's a reasonable moderate and so is Romney, why expect it to be any different just because he's got an R next to his name?

It's simple. If you're a principled conservative and believe this is the most important election of our time to save America as Michele Bachmann says, you'll vote Ron Paul. If that's all bs and you really just have an irrational hate of Obama and will vote Team Republican no matter what, you'll vote for his white doppleganger Mitt Romney.

BoatShoes;1044820 wrote: You can be sure that a law very similar to Obamacare would have passed had Romney won the presidency in 2008 (but no Republican AG's would be calling it socialism in the federal courts of course because Conservatives let Republicans get away with all the "big government" they want).

You just have a cult-like dislike of Obama who has basically governed like an Eisenhower Republican from the days of Yore.

Romney or Huntsman would make great democratic candidates because the democratic party still has room for moderates. The GOP left them.

Incorrect. Romney in no way, shape or form would have FORCED through obamacare when 80% of THE PEOPLE were against it. obamacare ONLY occurred because of the radical liberal policy agenda of the radical liberal triumvirate: obama/pelosi/reid, and their astounding power grab against the will of the people.

obama has not only governed as the most liberal president in history --- whether it be by doubling the size of the federal government from where it was just 10 years ago; or by appointing radical marxists to a multitude of cabinet office positions, or by his leftist activism and tactics.

But of course, he can't help it -- he is a radical liberal, and he surely can't change his stripes now.

Oats, you throw around the "radical liberal" and "marxist" tags like they were kleenex. The truth be told, anyone even slightly to the left of John Birch would be considered a radical liberal in this version of the Republican Party. I have my doubts that even the Messiah, Ronald Reagan, would pass the looney-tunes litmus test of the Teabaggers.

stlouiedipalma;1044999 wrote:... The truth be told, anyone even slightly to the left of John Birch would be considered a radical liberal in this version of the Republican Party. I have my doubts that even the Messiah, Ronald Reagan, would pass the looney-tunes litmus test of the Teabaggers.

Ronald Reagan was and is revered because of his leadership ability not because of his conservative nature. Many conservatives are very active in the moderate actions of the Republican Party. Finally requesting a candidates that adheres to true conservative principles is what they should be doing...seeking someone that represents their conservative views.

The same can be said for the true liberals of the Democratic Party. I would expect no difference from them. It seems, however that the majority of voters are neither. That doesn't mean those that have certain core convictions should seek out the positioning of a candidate that represents their views.