The Republican field of candidates is a joke including Romney...but like I said ANY of them is a vast improvement over Obama.

I'm ok with Mitt, and I'm a lot less uneasy about him than some of the other candidates. There just is no charismatic "R" that really excites people to want to go and "pull the lever", with the exception of Ron Paul, who strongly turns off as many people as he excites.

With no charasmatic candidate available, I'll settle for pragmatic...along with intelligent, articulate, an expert on geopolitics...someone who really cares about their country and the American people, knows their limitations and who considers it an honor to serve. Unfortunately she is on the sidelines (would be a great VP pickup...but that would be a waste).

believer;1041719 wrote:I can't quite put a finger on it but there's something about Romney that makes me uneasy. Nevertheless, I'd still vote for him in a second over the buffoon in the White House.

Let's hope the SCOTUS blows Obamacare out of the water in the meantime.

C'mon, Tobias. The Republican field of candidates is a joke including Romney...but like I said ANY of them is a vast improvement over Obama. I'm not exactly sure why you're in my face on the Romney thing?

I don't mean to be in your face, or even rude. You're simply the only one who has articulated any sort of specific negativity towards Romney.

HitsRus;1041806 wrote:I'm ok with Mitt, and I'm a lot less uneasy about him than some of the other candidates.

I agree with this as far as the other candidates.

Santorum? Are you fucking kidding me? Hell, I'LL VOTE FOR RON PAUL over him, and I think Paul would be a disaster. Santorum would easily be the worst President of this bunch.

Gingrich? I like him. I think the general consensus is that he would be able to maneuver within the Beltway better than anyone. He also knows what he's talking about. But, he is the regular crooked politician and there are sooooo many skeletons in his closet.

Perry? He can GTFO out too. He'd be painted as an idiot by the media (he has already I guess) and would get destroyed by Obama in the debates. It would be embarrassing.

Huntsman has no shot. Why is he still in the race? He's not getting picked as the VP.

Plus Bachmann and Cain? LOL.

Ron Paul? I love 50% of what he says, but I equally hate 50% of what he says. I am not a libertarian and do not support Ron Paul.

I disagree that Santorum or Perry would be better than Obama. Newt and Mitt would be the same except spend on different things. Paul is the only that's different at all.

I think a Romney nomination puts Michigan and Nevada back in GOP contention, and maybe even Massachusetts.

I'd like to see him take Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal (who unfortunately is out campaigning for Perry). I think that ticket would destroy Obama, especially a Romney-Jindal ticket. The media's main method of attacking GOP candidates is to make them look stupid, or at the very least crazy. With Romney who have a guy who went to Harvard for an MBA and JD, and a freaking Rhodes scholar. I think, to a lot of people, the typical stupid-GOP candidate (Bush, Bush, McCain) is not in play anymore and they'll reevaluate their choice.

I Wear Pants;1042036 wrote:I disagree that Santorum or Perry would be better than Obama. Newt and Mitt would be the same except spend on different things. Paul is the only that's different at all.

Perry would be better than Obama. Santorum wouldn't.

Tobias Fünke;1042051 wrote:Perry would be better than Obama. Santorum wouldn't.

Perry doesn't like the rights of individuals just like Santorum. I don't like this.

Repubs should steal this guy from the Democratic primary in NH. I think he shows promise.

[video=youtube;4d_FvgQ1csE][/video]

believer;1041565 wrote: But the Paulists, who howl louder than anyone over Bammer policies, arrogantly concede that they'll either not vote or waste their votes possibly ensuring 4 more years of the fiscal and political insanity they clearly abhor. And to add insult to injury, they arrogantly proclaim that it will be the fault of Repubs if the Bammer gets 4 more years to put us a few trillion dollars deeper in debt.

This is what I find hilarious. I agree that Obama is scum and needs to go, but not to replace him with the same thing. Why bother then? The idea that Romney would be any different from Obama is a joke.

Is he planning on cutting spending on anything? I know he plans to increase military spending, but I haven't heard about any specific cuts.

Is he going to bring any troops home? Of course not.

He might try to pass some token little tax cut, which would be fine, but it won't accomplish much of anything except bring about our bankruptcy that much quicker, because he hasn't a clue as to the real problems our economy faces.

He is owned by the same banks that own Obama, so he isn't going to rock the boat there. Subsidies and bailouts will be available for all who want them (and donate to his campaign).

Is Romney going to repeal the laws Obama and Bush shoved through to deprive us of our basic rights? No, he will use them to his advantage.

Even the thing that gets most Republicans fired up the most, Obamacare, isn't going to change. Even if Romney wanted to repeal it, Congress will not repeal it without a mandate from the people, and electing the architect of Obamacare certainly isn't going to light that fire under them.

Not to mention if Romney is elected, the imminent collapse of this bubble economy and fiat paper monetary system could well come on his watch. And even though his policies would be no different than Obama's, because there is an R by his name the "free market" would immediately get the blame, and we may never again know what a private economy looks like.

The time for party politics is over. There is only one candidate that won't add trillions to debt. Four years or Obama, Romney, Santorum, Perry, Gingrich, etc. will all leave us on the brink of monetary disaster, if not over the cliff. There is only one candidate that will force the government to respect our God-given rights rather than trample on them. I won't waste my vote settling anymore.

Two words for the future:

Chris Christie

ohiobucks1;1042230 wrote:Two words for the future:

Chris Christie

Two more words for our future if he's in charge:

Police State

Cleveland Buck;1042239 wrote:Two more words for our future if he's in charge:

Police State

Two more words:

That's ridiculous.

If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to write him in. Book it!

sleeper;1042504 wrote:If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to write him in. Book it!

+1

sleeper;1042504 wrote:If Paul doesn't get the nomination, I'm going to write him in. Book it!

It's likely I will do this as well.

If he doesn't run as a third-party candidate, I won't pencil him in, as I don't believe it would be his wish to hold the office, and as solid as his views are, if he doesn't want the job anymore, then I am not sure I'd want him to have it.

I'll likely vote for Gary Johnson.

Rubio! Rubio! Rubio!

If there ever was a slam dunk its him...get him to run now

ccrunner609;1042881 wrote:I have always been a Newt guy, I think that he has would kill Obama.

Doubt it. Newt loves to go that one step too far, and that would hurt him in a debate. Newt loves to have rhetoric that goes way too far, then he lacks substance.

I feel the likely guy to win is Romney, and that is sad. Romney is not smart when it comes to foreign policy. Guy has no idea how to be Commander in Chief. I still can't forgive him for a stupid Op-ed article he wrote during the New START debate where he said we can launch ICBMs from bombers. Hello, physics says you can't do that lol.

I'd also love to get into more detail about how the candidates would deal with the DoD budget, and how they would counter what Obama rolled out last week.

ptown_trojans_1;1042915 wrote:I feel the likely guy to win is Romney, and that is sad. Romney is not smart when it comes to foreign policy. Guy has no idea how to be Commander in Chief.

Does Obama?

ptown_trojans_1;1042915 wrote:I'd also love to get into more detail about how the candidates would deal with the DoD budget, and how they would counter what Obama rolled out last week.

Obama's DoD "budget" comes just in time to kick-off his re-election campaign. As I recall, he made similar claims in order to garner the anti-war leftist support during his first campaign.

You and I have agreed in the past the overall military procurement system is rife with waste, fraud, deceit, cronyism, and corruption.

Obama's budget is not about to correct any of those issues. He's once again pulling out the "slash and burn" talk to appease the anti-war left who are livid with him for failing - for the most part - to live up to his campaign promises.

He failed to live up to them because of global political realities and the entrenched military industrial complex. You can't fight city hall.

That being said, NONE of the Repub candidates will do any better.

ccrunner609;1042881 wrote:I have always been a Newt guy, I think that he has would kill Obama. Romneys record of flip flopping, Paul lack of experience with Foreign relations, Perry is an idiot, thise would kill these guys.

Can I get some examples of said "flip-flopping?"

ptown_trojans_1;1042915 wrote:I feel the likely guy to win is Romney, and that is sad. Romney is not smart when it comes to foreign policy. Guy has no idea how to be Commander in Chief. I still can't forgive him for a stupid Op-ed article he wrote during the New START debate where he said we can launch ICBMs from bombers. Hello, physics says you can't do that lol.

He's no general. That is a safe statement haha but Presidents, in my opinion, don't need to be--and especially now when domestic policy is by far the biggest issue for this country. You know as well as I do that they are essentially presented a set of options by the Chief of Staffs/Team of Experts/etc and they inform him on the best moves.

It's why I don't give Obama much credit for getting Osama. All he did was say "yes" to a plan they developed.

I am just so sick of voting for the "lesser of two evils" candidate. There have been very few candidates that I look to and say, "I really like that guy. I want HIM to be our president." Instead, it's always, "well this guy sucks. But this other guy sucks more. So I guess I'll go with the first guy."

Ron Paul is the first candidate that I actually really like. And I think he's the only one that would actually change things.

I hope he wins the nomination, because I think enough people are sick of the same old political bullshit that they would vote for him.

sherm03;1043195 wrote:Ron Paul is the first candidate that I actually really like. And I think he's the only one that would actually change things.

I hope he wins the nomination, because I think enough people are sick of the same old political bullshit that they would vote for him.

You would hope that would be the case but according to the Repubs it isn't. Otherwise Ron Paul would be way out in front.

believer;1043204 wrote:You would hope that would be the case but according to the Repubs it isn't. Otherwise Ron Paul would be way out in front.

I think the reason for that is because a lot of people who support Ron Paul (like myself) are registered as Independents. If Paul were to get the nomination, I think he'd run away with the general election.

ccrunner609;1043231 wrote:Ron Paul could carry alot of the independents that went to Obama last time....he will carry all the conservatives regardless cause their mindset is "anything is better"

I really like the Libertarian talk, when Ron gets going it is fun to sit back and listen. Makes me feel like maybe I am a one also.

This is true. Paul would get all the conservatives just because his name isn't Obama. Hardcore dems are going to vote for Obama because he will have a "D" next to his name. But the important segment is those in the middle. Paul could easily carry them, as well as the college aged voting block. I don't see any of the other republican candidates getting that independent vote swing.

"college voting block"...you mean the ones who went Obama's way last time? Some wild swings of political viewpoints on our nation's campuses. It seems they'll vote for whoever is not in charge.

Personally, I think voting for someone because he is different isn't much of a reason.

HitsRus;1043320 wrote:"college voting block"...you mean the ones who went Obama's way last time? Some wild swings of political viewpoints on our nation's campuses. It seems they'll vote for whoever is not in charge.

Personally, I think voting for someone because he is different isn't much of a reason.

I was just about to post something almost exactly like this.

I'm fascinated that 76 year old Ron Paul has gained so much popularity with the "college age" crowd. Generally college age voters tend to Democrat...and then they grow up.