Republican candidates for 2012

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Republican candidates for 2012
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 22, 2012 1:50 PM
BGFalcons82;1061776 wrote:Hmmm...can you post a paper or video wherein any of the current R candidates advocate the abolition of the 2nd Amendment?
I can point to support of countless unconstitutional programs they support or have supported. Bailouts, patriot act, ndaa, individual mandates, no child left behind, medicate part d, undeclared wars,debt ceiling raises, nation building, sopa, pipa , I could go on. how can these people claim to be conservative, believe in liberty or the constitution.
Jan 22, 2012 1:50pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 22, 2012 1:53 PM
How about this line-up:

Newt - POTUS
Santorum - Veep
Romney - Secretary of State
Paul - Secretary of Treasury
Cain - Secretary of Commerce
Rice - Secretary of Defense
Perry - Secretary of Labor
Bachmann - Secretary of Education
Palin - Secretary of the Interior
Jan 22, 2012 1:53pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Jan 22, 2012 2:13 PM
believer;1061783 wrote:We agree on this much at least. Unfortunately idiots who will toss their votes at Ron Paul (if he runs third party) serve only to exacerbate the nonsense that exists.

Saint Paul is millions of dollars short and a decade late to perform his miraculously perfect political voodoo.

The Paulist Purists are among the most vocal Obama critics. But for whatever inexplicable reason they insist on re-electing the Appointed One by default.

I guess if we're all heading for the abyss, the Paulists aim to get us there faster.
Even if all Paul supporters vote for the GOP candidate (Romney) the nonsense is going to continue.

The deficit will continue to race upwards. To quote others here. Book it.

No economy means you can forget about everything else we are on a bad path and Romney is NOT going to help but only hurt. We already know Obama's "plan" so I will not expand upon that.

Given the choice of Stalin vs Hitler (I am not comparing our current candidates to them) is it wise to choose at all? The answer is no, both paths lead to our demise. I could care less about how slow the demise is, in fact I prefer to have my band aids torn off quickly rather than tortuously slow.
Jan 22, 2012 2:13pm
Z

Zombaypirate

Senior Member

581 posts
Jan 22, 2012 2:19 PM
pmoney25;1061800 wrote:I can point to support of countless unconstitutional programs they support or have supported. Bailouts, patriot act, ndaa, individual mandates, no child left behind, medicate part d, undeclared wars,debt ceiling raises, nation building, sopa, pipa , I could go on. how can these people claim to be conservative, believe in liberty or the constitution.
They are not conservative. However they have fooled the fools into believing so. The new conservative is nothing more than Big guvment spenders but you can have your gun. It is sickening to watch people lower their standards to this degree.
Jan 22, 2012 2:19pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:12 PM
pmoney25;1061800 wrote:I can point to support of countless unconstitutional programs they support or have supported. Bailouts, patriot act, ndaa, individual mandates, no child left behind, medicate part d, undeclared wars,debt ceiling raises, nation building, sopa, pipa , I could go on. how can these people claim to be conservative, believe in liberty or the constitution.
Huh, can't find one, eh? That brush you are using is the widest one made. Wow. I heard all 4 candidates at the last debate say they against SOPA and PIPA....and yet here you are painting all candidates not named "Ron" as being for it.

Why the mis-quotes? Or is this the Paulist agenda?
Jan 22, 2012 3:12pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:21 PM
No republicans support pipa or sopa? i am condeming the party not just the candidates. Explain to me what makes newt conservative. His support of bailouts, mandates, carbon tax, nation building , patriot act. His high moral standards? The guy is a meglomaniac.
Jan 22, 2012 3:21pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:26 PM
BGFalcons82;1061889 wrote:Huh, can't find one, eh? That brush you are using is the widest one made. Wow. I heard all 4 candidates at the last debate say they against SOPA and PIPA....and yet here you are painting all candidates not named "Ron" as being for it.

Why the mis-quotes? Or is this the Paulist agenda?
Besides Paul none of them seemed like the would have done shit or known shit about SOPA/PIPA if it didn't become the hot topic of the day because of the internet.

Seriously, explain how Newt is a conservative (you can't) and then barring that explain what makes him a good choice with his ideas and voting history.
Jan 22, 2012 3:26pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:30 PM
BGFalcons82;1061689 wrote:Mr. Paul Bot (good avatar, BTW):
Did you consider my question? Based on your beliefs, not Ron's, are you happy with more statist justices to be appointed? To me, a 3rd party run by Ron Paul insures permanent change to our founding documents. Is this what you really desire?
I'm pretty convinced that statist justices will happen either way. Newt's choices might be DIFFERENT, but I would bet against them being better.
pmoney25;1061736 wrote:Independents will not vote for newt.

Based on any poll I've seen, there is only one in the current Republican crop that would win over more Independents than Obama, but he's not enough of a partisan politician to win the nomination. In reality, his belief that America could still be a great beacon of freedom and prosperity is what makes him unable to gain traction amongst Republicans. The others say mostly the same things, just from different angles (Romney has the business angle, Newt has the career politician angle, and Insanitorum has the religious governance angle).
believer;1061783 wrote:Unfortunately idiots who will toss their votes at Ron Paul (if he runs third party) serve only to exacerbate the nonsense that exists.
Nah. The nonsense will still exist just as much if Newt or Romney or Insanitorum take the White House. They're not here to curb any serious problems that exist.
believer;1061783 wrote:But for whatever inexplicable reason they insist on re-electing the Appointed One by default.
Doesn't matter. Regarding the establishment candidates: Six in one; Half a dozen in the other.
believer;1061783 wrote:I guess if we're all heading for the abyss, the Paulists aim to get us there faster.
Oh, now don't sell the Republicans short. They're doing their best to be just as destructive, and I think they're matching speed anymore.
pmoney25;1061800 wrote:I can point to support of countless unconstitutional programs they support or have supported. Bailouts, patriot act, ndaa, individual mandates, no child left behind, medicate part d, undeclared wars,debt ceiling raises, nation building, sopa, pipa , I could go on. how can these people claim to be conservative, believe in liberty or the constitution.
Yeah, these were not "the evils of Obama" alone. The Republicans had a NICE big hand in each and every one (and were the champions of more than a couple).
Zombaypirate;1061832 wrote:No economy means you can forget about everything else we are on a bad path and Romney is NOT going to help but only hurt. We already know Obama's "plan" so I will not expand upon that.
Bingo. When the economy ceases to exist, buying a gun isn't really going to be an issue anymore.
Zombaypirate;1061832 wrote:Given the choice of Stalin vs Hitler (I am not comparing our current candidates to them) is it wise to choose at all? The answer is no, both paths lead to our demise.
"But, but, but ... a vote for anyone except Stalin keeps Hitler in power!"

We're pretty much screwed either way.
Jan 22, 2012 3:30pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:35 PM
O-Trap;1061905 wrote:Nah. The nonsense will still exist just as much if Newt or Romney or Insanitorum take the White House. They're not here to curb any serious problems that exist.
Absolutely it will exist. It would still exist even if Pontiff Paul somehow by divine political miracle takes office.

If anyone out there thinks for a second that Ron Paul's "principles" would outweigh political realities when the heavy decision-making hits the fan you're sadly delusional and/or naive.
Jan 22, 2012 3:35pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:37 PM
BGFalcons82;1061889 wrote:Huh, can't find one, eh? That brush you are using is the widest one made. Wow. I heard all 4 candidates at the last debate say they against SOPA and PIPA....and yet here you are painting all candidates not named "Ron" as being for it.

Why the mis-quotes? Or is this the Paulist agenda?
Actually, I didn't see any of them asked prior to it becoming a public outrage, so it's hard to say how they would have felt about it prior to that. However, if any of them are of the same ideal as Rubio (who ccrunner said, on this thread, would make a good Veep nom), they likely would have supported it, as he had his name down as in support of it initially ... maybe Newt and Romulus could have painted it as "fighting cyber terrorism" perhaps. Would you have supported it then?
pmoney25;1061894 wrote:No republicans support pipa or sopa? i am condeming the party not just the candidates. Explain to me what makes newt conservative. His support of bailouts, mandates, carbon tax, nation building , patriot act. His high moral standards? The guy is a meglomaniac.
But, but, but ... he believes we can be Christians and have guns! Plus he lashes out against the mainstream media! Surely, he MUST be a TRUE CONSERVATIVE!

*barf*
I Wear Pants;1061902 wrote:Besides Paul none of them seemed like the would have done shit or known shit about SOPA/PIPA if it didn't become the hot topic of the day because of the internet.

Seriously, explain how Newt is a conservative (you can't) and then barring that explain what makes him a good choice with his ideas and voting history.
*waits for the 'he helped balance the budget' line*
Jan 22, 2012 3:37pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:40 PM
believer;1061916 wrote:Absolutely it will exist. It would still exist even if Pontiff Paul somehow by divine political miracle takes office.

If anyone out there thinks for a second that Ron Paul's "principles" would outweigh political realities when the heavy decision-making hits the fan you're sadly delusional and/or naive.
No, you're right. It will still exist, but I'd much prefer to have any candidate who isn't going along with it in office. We can have the Executive and Legislative branches harmonious about ruining our economy and spreading the reach of the Federal government further into our daily lives, or we can have the Executive and Legislative branches fighting each other over those.

Personally, it would appear that the former offers zero fighting chance, while the latter offers some.
Jan 22, 2012 3:40pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:45 PM
O-Trap;1061927 wrote:No, you're right. It will still exist, but I'd much prefer to have any candidate who isn't going along with it in office. We can have the Executive and Legislative branches harmonious about ruining our economy and spreading the reach of the Federal government further into our daily lives, or we can have the Executive and Legislative branches fighting each other over those.

Personally, it would appear that the former offers zero fighting chance, while the latter offers some.
Can't find any disagreement here.
Jan 22, 2012 3:45pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 3:49 PM
believer;1061932 wrote:Can't find any disagreement here.
Which is why I vote for "some" instead of "none."

It's honestly not Paul as much as it is the ideals that he embodies. He's just been the loudest voice about it over the last decade or so.
Jan 22, 2012 3:49pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:04 PM
O-Trap;1061941 wrote:Which is why I vote for "some" instead of "none."

It's honestly not Paul as much as it is the ideals that he embodies. He's just been the loudest voice about it over the last decade or so.
I completely understand. I'm certainly not opposed to Ron Paul's ideals.

But the man's not perfect. I just grow tired of the Paulists who behave as if he is. It's almost cult-like.

Ron Paul says what needs said, but in the world of Realpolitik, he would govern accordingly.
Jan 22, 2012 4:04pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:12 PM
believer;1061964 wrote:I completely understand. I'm certainly not opposed to Ron Paul's ideals.

But the man's not perfect. I just grow tired of the Paulists who behave as if he is. It's almost cult-like.

Ron Paul says what needs said, but in the world of Realpolitik, he would govern accordingly.
I can get that. To borrow a biblical principle, speaking the truth is supposed to be done in love. I know a lot of Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters who don't control their passion well, and instead, they get very mean and overbearing. Now, taking that out of biblical context it turns a lot of people off, so biblical or not, it's just a good idea to communicate without being condescending or mean-spirited.

One of Paul's recent email newsletters actually said exactly that, but nobody reads their email anymore. :D
Jan 22, 2012 4:12pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:25 PM
O-Trap;1061920 wrote:*waits for the 'he helped balance the budget' line*
Yeah, that's so tired, isn't it? Oh wait...I just re-read what you wrote: "he helped balance.." Helped? That's it? :rolleyes: I suppose if it's stated over and over and over then it loses its importance. It's like it's happened so often, right? A regular occurence I must say.

I'm more convinced than ever that Ron Paul was solely responsible for the balanced budgets of the late 90s.
Jan 22, 2012 4:25pm
believer's avatar

believer

Senior Member

8,153 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:28 PM
BGFalcons82;1061995 wrote:I'm more convinced than ever that Ron Paul was solely responsible for the balanced budgets of the late 90s.
Whatchoo talkin' 'bouut, Willis? That was 110% due to Bill Clinton and had nothing to do with Ron Paul or the Repubs in Congress.
Jan 22, 2012 4:28pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:33 PM
BGFalcons82;1061995 wrote:Yeah, that's so tired, isn't it? Oh wait...I just re-read what you wrote: "he helped balance.." Helped? That's it? :rolleyes: I suppose if it's stated over and over and over then it loses its importance. It's like it's happened so often, right? A regular occurence I must say.

I'm more convinced than ever that Ron Paul was solely responsible for the balanced budgets of the late 90s.
Oh come off that. Like I just said, it's not Ron Paul that our country needs. It's a candidate who believes in ACTUAL fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, and allowing the federal government to only focus on that for which it was granted responsibility. As of the last decade, that's been Paul. If someone else steps up to propose the same, I'll stand behind them.

However, Newt's positions on several issues since would indicate that his "help" in balancing the budget was something along the lines of, "I agree," given that his current views on military spending are hilarious in the face of trying to balance anything.

Or, perhaps he was just lucky enough to do so in a time when balancing the budget was easier than it is now, but if that's the case, it hardly qualifies him in THIS economy.

Also, knowing a thing or two about this guy's fundraising practices, I wouldn't trust him to so much as balance my checkbook without skimming.
Jan 22, 2012 4:33pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:38 PM
believer;1061997 wrote:Whatchoo talkin' 'bouut, Willis? That was 110% due to Bill Clinton and had nothing to do with Ron Paul or the Repubs in Congress.
I laugh when I hear people talk about Bill Clinton having been a good president because he "helped balance the budget."

The position isn't dissimilar from what Sir Newton is saying now.

I suppose every person in Congress in the time could say the same damn thing. Kinda makes it lose its significance, I think.

But then, the Newtonians will still ignore anything else he says as long as he throws up that card.
Jan 22, 2012 4:38pm
BGFalcons82's avatar

BGFalcons82

Senior Member

2,173 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:52 PM
O-Trap;1061920 wrote:Actually, I didn't see any of them asked prior to it becoming a public outrage, so it's hard to say how they would have felt about it prior to that. However, if any of them are of the same ideal as Rubio (who ccrunner said, on this thread, would make a good Veep nom), they likely would have supported it, as he had his name down as in support of it initially ... maybe Newt and Romulus could have painted it as "fighting cyber terrorism" perhaps. Would you have supported it then?
I support our patent and copyright laws. I do not believe that anyone should have the right to steal other's ideas, products, or intellectual property without payment. The question is really, how to protect the owners and incarcerate the thiefs? I agree that the SOPA and PIPA bills went way too far and should have been defeated. To me, the answer lies in the technology of the internet and how can music, books, patents, designs, and other copyrighted material be protected from others whom would choose to steal it and pay nothing.

If anyone believes that such things should be free for everyone, then all original thought, entreprenuership, and inventiveness will surely die. There should be rewards for new ideas, new products, new medicines, new music, etc. if we are to prosper. If not, then what have we become?
Jan 22, 2012 4:52pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:57 PM
BGFalcons82;1062031 wrote:I support our patent and copyright laws. I do not believe that anyone should have the right to steal other's ideas, products, or intellectual property without payment. The question is really, how to protect the owners and incarcerate the thiefs? I agree that the SOPA and PIPA bills went way too far and should have been defeated. To me, the answer lies in the technology of the internet and how can music, books, patents, designs, and other copyrighted material be protected from others whom would choose to steal it and pay nothing.

If anyone believes that such things should be free for everyone, then all original thought, entreprenuership, and inventiveness will surely die. There should be rewards for new ideas, new products, new medicines, new music, etc. if we are to prosper. If not, then what have we become?
I don't disagree with anything you said. The problem is, SOPA and PIPA wouldn't have accomplished the things you just mentioned. They merely would have allowed for more invasive monitoring of American citizens.

Believe me, I am a STRONG proponent of intellectual property rights. My business depends on them.

I have to genuinely wonder if those who initially supported the bills actually read them.
Jan 22, 2012 4:57pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 22, 2012 4:59 PM
BGFalcons82;1061689 wrote:Mr. Paul Bot (good avatar, BTW)
Too bad it is too small to see the whole message on it.

Jan 22, 2012 4:59pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 22, 2012 5:14 PM
ppppolls PublicPolicyPolling
Just a reminder we found Obama 47 Newt 45 this week...in Texas...tonight very good news for the Pres:
LOL. That's it Rs. Just let Fox lead you on like the sheep you are and you have no chance in November.
Jan 22, 2012 5:14pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 22, 2012 5:32 PM
Pause.

I was just in a discussion with a friend of mine, whose girlfriend made a comment on Facebook to this effect:
Lmfao actually if u really dnt have the money to buy n e of the basic shit u need the goverment will help u so really u dnt need money..
I was floored.

You wouldn't believe who she's voting for, but it's not Obama.

Sometimes I think there needs to be an entrance exam on the issues before one is allowed to vote. Seriously, this girl's vote counts just as much as any one person's on here.
Jan 22, 2012 5:32pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 22, 2012 5:45 PM
O-Trap;1062126 wrote:Pause.

I was just in a discussion with a friend of mine, whose girlfriend made a comment on Facebook to this effect:


I was floored.

You wouldn't believe who she's voting for, but it's not Obama.

Sometimes I think there needs to be an entrance exam on the issues before one is allowed to vote. Seriously, this girl's vote counts just as much as any one person's on here.
Shoot. Her. All.
Jan 22, 2012 5:45pm