Republican candidates for 2012

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Republican candidates for 2012
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 23, 2012 10:44 PM
Ron did pretty well when they bothered to let him talk. The rest of the are a joke. Mitt will say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear. Newt wants covert action against fucking Cuba. Santorum wants outright occupation of Cuba to keep the Mooslims away. Every one of them except Paul would undoubtedly bankrupt this country.
Jan 23, 2012 10:44pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:03 PM
Has Ron got a little ADD going when he talks? He rambles so much you really don't know where he stands when he gets done.
Jan 23, 2012 11:03pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:04 PM
Quite clear who NBC wants to get the nomination.
Jan 23, 2012 11:04pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:05 PM
stlouiedipalma;1063568 wrote:Has Ron got a little ADD going when he talks? He rambles so much you really don't know where he stands when he gets done.
It's too bad people only "listen" to someone who speaks well. It's how we got Obama, and it may be how we get Newt. Who cares about the real issues, right?
Jan 23, 2012 11:05pm
sleeper's avatar

sleeper

Legend

27,879 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:08 PM
Ron Paul knocked the debate out of the park. I can't believe the Republicans are again going to pass on a once-in-a-lifetime candidate like Ron Paul. They made the mistake in 2008 electing McCain, let's hope they make the right decision this year and bring in Paul.
Jan 23, 2012 11:08pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:11 PM
I, for one, would be tickled to death if Ron Paul won the nomination. It would confirm my belief that the Republicans have gone over the cliff.

I also think the leftist media is pushing hard for Gingrich to get the nomination, much like Rush was fighting for Hillary four years ago.
Jan 23, 2012 11:11pm
ptown_trojans_1's avatar

ptown_trojans_1

Moderator

7,632 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:11 PM
Gingrich? Really?
Think about that for a second, the former speaker of the House, who is just as much Washingtonian as the shady dirty dealings is the favorite now?

That makes no sense what-so-ever.
Dude is freaking nuts.
Jan 23, 2012 11:11pm
S

stlouiedipalma

Senior Member

1,797 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:20 PM
That's why I think the left would rather see an Obama/Gingrich contest. Romney would give Obama a better run for his money, taking a huge chunk of the moderate vote.
Jan 23, 2012 11:20pm
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:28 PM
stlouiedipalma;1063582 wrote:I, for one, would be tickled to death if Ron Paul won the nomination. It would confirm my belief that the Republicans have gone over the cliff.

I also think the leftist media is pushing hard for Gingrich to get the nomination, much like Rush was fighting for Hillary four years ago.
How so? I'd say the nomination of anyone but Paul confirms that.
Jan 23, 2012 11:28pm
Cleveland Buck's avatar

Cleveland Buck

Troll Hunter

5,126 posts
Jan 23, 2012 11:34 PM
I Wear Pants;1063603 wrote:How so? I'd say the nomination of anyone but Paul confirms that.
He only knows what Rachel Maddow tells him, so that means Ron Paul is a kook.
Jan 23, 2012 11:34pm
pmoney25's avatar

pmoney25

Senior Member

1,787 posts
Jan 24, 2012 12:06 AM
Cleveland Buck;1063484 wrote:His supporters will go with the message, not necessarily Paul. If Ron was Romney's VP I would be voting for Gary Johnson or Vermin Supreme.
That was what I meant was that the Message is more important to Paul than the Party. Assuming Paul doesn't give up his beliefs , his supporters would follow instead of stay with the GOP.

In all honesty, what I see happening if Paul doesn't win the nomination is he will NOT run third party and will endorse Johnson or just not endorse anyone at all.
Jan 24, 2012 12:06am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 24, 2012 12:50 AM
Here are the candidates positions on the issues and their 'scores' and placement on the political spectrum by their record:

Newt Gingrich
http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm
hard core conservative

Mitt Romney
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
populist leaning conservative

Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm
conservative leaning libertarian

Rick Santorum
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
hard core conservative

Barack Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
hard core liberal

Fact....according to the record, Ron Paul is NOT the most conservative candidate out there...not even close. He is a LIBERTARIAN with a very slight conservative tilt.
Fact...no matter what you think...there is a considerable difference between the candidates...and especially the "R" candidates and the president.


It is as BGfalcons said on the other thread,,, Paul is a libertarian, not to be confused with a conservative.
Jan 24, 2012 12:50am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 24, 2012 12:53 AM
fish82;1063106 wrote:The clear inference from Paul's COS was that he was "detained," i.e. held and/or questioned. I was merely clarifying that in reference to pmoney's claim of a Consititutional violation.
He was detained long enough to miss his flight. That is the definition of detained. Rand says it hindered him from getting to Washington to make a scheduled vote. The idea that a known US senator could possibly be detained from getting to a scheduled vote is exactly what the constitution was meant to protect. It could be used politically by the executive branch which controls the TSA.

He is not the average airline traveler. He is a well known US senator. If by some reason the idiot did not know who he was Rand would just provide his credentials and move on. Congressman are not above the law but are provided certain protections under the law to prevent political interference in there duties. If we are at the point in this country where we fear US congressman are a threat to blow up planes. God save the republic.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46101744/?ocid=ansmsnbc11
Jan 24, 2012 12:53am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:02 AM
et tu brute?

I don't think the TSA robots have the authority to override the rules which apply to all travelers on commercial airliners. If you want to ride the plane, submit to the pat down. Otherwise get into your car and drive and I'm sure they won't hold you up.

Seriously...they were going to pat down his knee....how demeaning.(sarcasm) I suspect some grandstanding here.
Jan 24, 2012 1:02am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:16 AM
HitsRus;1063667 wrote:Here are the candidates positions on the issues and their 'scores' and placement on the political spectrum by their record:

Newt Gingrich
http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm
hard core conservative

Mitt Romney
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
populist leaning conservative

Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm
conservative leaning libertarian

Rick Santorum
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
hard core conservative

Barack Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
hard core liberal

Fact....according to the record, Ron Paul is NOT the most conservative candidate out there...not even close. He is a LIBERTARIAN with a very slight conservative tilt.
Fact...no matter what you think...there is a considerable difference between the candidates...and especially the "R" candidates and the president.


It is as BGfalcons said on the other thread,,, Paul is a libertarian, not to be confused with a conservative.
No, Paul is not a modern Conservative (what was meant by the term "Neoconservative" before it became a derogatory term). However, I would contend that Paul's positions embody the original meaning of 'conservatism' more closely than any Neoconservative (not used derogatorily) of our day.

From tonight's speech, here is a quote from Paul about this topic (pardon any mistakes, as I transcribed while he was speaking -- paragraphs added after transcription, obviously):
I think the problem is that it's become difficult to define what being Conservative means. I think that's our problem.

'Conservative' means we have smaller government and more liberty, and yet, if you ask what we have done, I'd say we've lost our way completely.

Our rhetoric is still pretty good, but when we get in charge, we expand the government. You talk about Dodd Frank; we gave them Sarbanes Oxley. We gave debts as well, you know, when we're in charge.

So if it means limiting the government, you have to ask the basic question, 'What should the form of government be'? The founders asked that question, had a revolution, and wrote a Constitution. They said that government ought to be to protect liberty. It's not to run a welfare state. It's not to be the policemen of the world.

So how can you be a Conservative and cut foodstamps, but not cut spending overseas? Not a nickel or penny that anyone will cut on the Conservative side on overseas spending. We don't have the money. They're willing to start world wars.

So I say, if you're Conservative, you want small government across the board, especially in personal liberty. What's wrong with having the federal government out of our personal lives?

So we have to decide what 'Conservative' means and what 'limited government' means. I have a simple suggestion: We have a pretty good guide, and if we followed the Constitution, the government would be very small, and we would all be devoted Conservatives.
Do you disagree with his assessment of what Conservatism means. Does it not mean having smaller government and more liberty?

- Genuinely Curious in Akron
Jan 24, 2012 1:16am
F

Footwedge

Senior Member

9,265 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:20 AM
I think we should elect the biggest and baddest war monger. Iran has WMD and a brutal dictator. They will use them because they want to kill us. I want to fight em over there...not here. I'm especially askeered of mushroom clowds...and I definitely envision a Muslim takeover of our country...and the implementation of sharia law. We need to bomb them..and bomb them now. Just like my hero John Bolton says....Newt and Sannytoreum too.

We need to police the world....and every ten years or so...we need to pick up a little shiddy country and throw it against the wall...just to prove that we mean business.

The cost? Who cares about the cost? Nobody ever really passes the hat around to pay for these wars anyhow. After all, it's my money. Not the military's. The soldiers are volunteers, so we don't have to pay them either.

If we kill a half million Irani' children, it will be well worth it. If it's "well worth it" to Madelaine Allbright, then it's well worth it to me.
Jan 24, 2012 1:20am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:25 AM
HitsRus;1063667 wrote:Here are the candidates positions on the issues and their 'scores' and placement on the political spectrum by their record:

Newt Gingrich
http://www.issues2000.org/Newt_Gingrich.htm
hard core conservative

Mitt Romney
http://www.issues2000.org/Mitt_Romney.htm
populist leaning conservative

Ron Paul
http://www.issues2000.org/ron_paul.htm
conservative leaning libertarian

Rick Santorum
http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Rick_Santorum.htm
hard core conservative

Barack Obama
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm
hard core liberal

Fact....according to the record, Ron Paul is NOT the most conservative candidate out there...not even close. He is a LIBERTARIAN with a very slight conservative tilt.
Fact...no matter what you think...there is a considerable difference between the candidates...and especially the "R" candidates and the president.


It is as BGfalcons said on the other thread,,, Paul is a libertarian, not to be confused with a conservative.
That's by the people who have redefined what conservative means. Conservative means well, conservative. The military, drug, and foreign policy measures of Newt and Santorum are not conservative no matter how much you want to label them so.
Jan 24, 2012 1:25am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:27 AM
I Wear Pants;1063688 wrote:That's by the people who have redefined what conservative means. Conservative means well, conservative. The military, drug, and foreign policy measures of Newt and Santorum are not conservative no matter how much you want to label them so.
To distinguish, Newt & gang are definitely more republican than Paul. But Republican != Conservative.
Jan 24, 2012 1:27am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:29 AM
HitsRus;1063667 wrote:Fact....according to the record, Ron Paul is NOT the most conservative candidate out there...not even close. He is a LIBERTARIAN with a very slight conservative tilt.
I think this is a false characterization of Paul. I would say he is more 10th amendment than libertarian. With a large conservative tilt. He is anti abortion and would vote so in Texas. He is anti drug and would vote so in Texas. He is anti gay marriage and would vote so in Texas. He is anti prostitution and would vote so in Texas. He is anti spending money via the government we don't have and he would vote so in Texas. If the state of Texas wanted to institute a solution for the healthcare needs of its citizens given the right criteria (justly administered and finacially feasable) he might just vote for it.

But I guess if you want to abide by the constitution and don't beleive the feds should be dipping their hands into every aspect of our lives you are a libertarian kook who would allow unchecked prostitution, drug use, and abortion. The only real conservatives are those that believe it is best administered via Washington DC.
Jan 24, 2012 1:29am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Jan 24, 2012 1:42 AM
Are you sure you are not redefining conservative? What's wrong with being libertarian? If that is what you are, then embrace it. Conservative have always been for a strong military.
Jan 24, 2012 1:42am
I

I Wear Pants

Senior Member

16,223 posts
Jan 24, 2012 2:09 AM
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Are you sure you are not redefining conservative? What's wrong with being libertarian? If that is what you are, then embrace it. Conservative have always been for a strong military.
We're positive we aren't redefining it.

And it's simply untrue to equate strong defense to our current military exploits.
Jan 24, 2012 2:09am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Jan 24, 2012 2:15 AM
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Are you sure you are not redefining conservative?
I'd suggest that, historically, I'd have a better case than you do.
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:What's wrong with being libertarian? If that is what you are, then embrace it.
Nothing at all wrong with it. I'm just saying modern Libertarianism is more conservative than modern Republicanism.
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Conservative have always been for a strong military.
Strong, yes. Aggressive and spread all over the world, no.
Jan 24, 2012 2:15am
IggyPride00's avatar

IggyPride00

Senior Member

6,482 posts
Jan 24, 2012 2:22 AM
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released tax records on Tuesday indicating he will pay $6.2 million in taxes on a total of $42.5 million in income over the years 2010 and 2011. Bowing to increasing political pressure to provide more detail about his vast wealth, the former private equity executive released tax returns indicating he and his wife, Ann, paid an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent in 2010. They expect to pay a 15.4 percent rate when they file their returns for 2011.
Romney's tax rate is below that of most wage-earning Americans because most of his income, as outlined in more than 500 pages of tax documents, flows from capital gains on investments.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46110741/ns/politics/#.Tx5bnvk8c4o

Liberals are already in a frenzy over the tax document dump. They are enraged he could manage to earn $42 million dollars while being unemployed because he was busy running for President. They are enraged he only paid 13.9% in taxes. They are enraged that he made more per day than the average American made per year.

Daily Kos already has a spoof on the hunger is close to home commercials involving Romney and his wealth/taxes.
"I work at your grocery store, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt..."
"I flew the plane you took to go on vacation, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt...."
"I empty your bins every week, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt..."
"I patrol your street every night, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt...."
"I write the software you use at work, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt...."
"I built the engine in your car, and I pay a higher tax rate than Mitt..."
We can expect to see more and more of this as the class warfare is sure to be vicious and brutal.
Jan 24, 2012 2:22am
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jan 24, 2012 3:15 AM
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Are you sure you are not redefining conservative?
Yes. The federal govenment has constitutionally defined powers. I am not willing to violate them to impose my conservative views nationally. Now if the people via the states want to nationalize them via the amendment process I am game.
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:What's wrong with being libertarian?
Nothing. Just don't hitch that wagon in Washington DC and enforce it nationally.
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:If that is what you are, then embrace it.
I am hardly a libertarian. I have voted against gay marriage in my state when the issue appeared on the ballot. Prostitution no. I would not vote to legalize hard drugs in my state. MJ I would consider depending on social economic facts. But they would have to be compelling. You misuderstand me as much as you misunderstand Paul.
HitsRus;1063697 wrote:Conservative have always been for a strong military.
I am for a very strong military. With only three stipulations. Its formation and use is constitutional and we can pay for it. I have locked horns with the Ronulans on this many times. I know I don't hold your view. Hardly makes me for a weak military. We may disagree with the Ronulans but to say they are not for a strong American military to defend this nation is nothing more than political demagoguery. It puts you in the same camp as those who claim republicans want to starve children or leave the ederly to the wolves because they want to not cut but reduce the baseline growth of a budget.
Jan 24, 2012 3:15am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Jan 24, 2012 3:35 AM
"They are enraged he only paid 13.9% in taxes."

Then they don't understand how dividends and corporate taxation works, the majority of that 13.9% has already been taxed at least once. Then again, why bother? The American Left is fiscally incompetent, all they want is all mortgage principal reduced, all student loans forgiven and the government to print enough money such that everyone is a millionaire, which in reality means no one is.
Jan 24, 2012 3:35am