WebFire;1081250 wrote:This is why RP will not the nomination and why people think he's wacky. They don't understand the problems this country faces and certainly wouldn't like the fixes.

Reps.

I like Ron, love his policies, but once its clear he's out of it, I'm not going to throw my vote away. Like it or not no matter who the GOP picks, they are better than BO

bases_loaded;1081268 wrote:I like Ron, love his policies, but once its clear he's out of it, I'm not going to throw my vote away. Like it or not no matter who the GOP picks, they are better than BO

How are you throwing your vote away? Is the purpose of voting to pick the winner, or to pick the best person to run the country?

bases_loaded;1081268 wrote:I like Ron, love his policies, but once its clear he's out of it, I'm not going to throw my vote away. Like it or not no matter who the GOP picks, they are better than BO

If you aren't voting for the one you back, you are throwing your vote away.

For the sake of discussion, let's assume Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination and will not run 3rd party. Right now, that seems like a pretty safe assumption, but things can change quickly in the Republican primaries, as we've all seen.

Therefore, this election, like the vast majority of 2nd-term elections, is a referendum on Barack Hussein Obama. While it is laudible to only vote "for" somebody, this election is moreso about voting whether or not to continue down the path we are heading with Barry, whether or not we are comfortable with more Ruth Buzzi Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS, whether or not we have a secure Southern border, whether or not full amnesty is granted to those who came here illegally, whether or not we want trillion dollar yearly deficits as far into the future as any NASA computer can predict, whether or not ObamaKare is further shoved up our rectums with more "Catholics vs. The United States Government" Amendment fights, and whether or not we want to continue down the European Socialist path to Ameritopia.

I understand, and agree with the Ron Paul domestic visions, but I'm 98% sure it's not going to happen. So what's next for Paul supporters? Do they do as his pollster suggested today and vote for more Barry, do they waste their vote (but not their conscience) on also-rans like Gary Johnson, or do they hold their nose, walk into the voting both, and vote against the worst President of the past 50 years by selecting the Republican nominee? It remains to be seen as there are 9 months left to decide, but I would highly recommend the Paul gang consider what Barry has done to this once-great nation and what he will do to finish his work should he not be voted against in November. Call it negative, antagonistic, "not what elections are about", yadda, yadda...but it is what it is, no matter how much you loathe it framed this way.

BGFalcons82;1081341 wrote:For the sake of discussion, let's assume Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination and will not run 3rd party. Right now, that seems like a pretty safe assumption, but things can change quickly in the Republican primaries, as we've all seen.

Therefore, this election, like the vast majority of 2nd-term elections, is a referendum on Barack Hussein Obama. While it is laudible to only vote "for" somebody, this election is moreso about voting whether or not to continue down the path we are heading with Barry, whether or not we are comfortable with more Ruth Buzzi Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS, whether or not we have a secure Southern border, whether or not full amnesty is granted to those who came here illegally, whether or not we want trillion dollar yearly deficits as far into the future as any NASA computer can predict, whether or not ObamaKare is further shoved up our rectums with more "Catholics vs. The United States Government" Amendment fights, and whether or not we want to continue down the European Socialist path to Ameritopia.

I understand, and agree with the Ron Paul domestic visions, but I'm 98% sure it's not going to happen. So what's next for Paul supporters? Do they do as his pollster suggested today and vote for more Barry, do they waste their vote (but not their conscience) on also-rans like Gary Johnson, or do they hold their nose, walk into the voting both, and vote against the worst President of the past 50 years by selecting the Republican nominee? It remains to be seen as there are 9 months left to decide, but I would highly recommend the Paul gang consider what Barry has done to this once-great nation and what he will do to finish his work should he not be voted against in November. Call it negative, antagonistic, "not what elections are about", yadda, yadda...but it is what it is, no matter how much you loathe it framed this way.

I will write in Ron Paul. I think Obama is terrible, but I think Romey, Gingrich, and especially Santorum are just as bad. The only way I waste my vote is to cast it for any of these clowns.

BGFalcons82;1081341 wrote:For the sake of discussion, let's assume Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination and will not run 3rd party. Right now, that seems like a pretty safe assumption, but things can change quickly in the Republican primaries, as we've all seen.

Therefore, this election, like the vast majority of 2nd-term elections, is a referendum on Barack Hussein Obama. While it is laudible to only vote "for" somebody, this election is moreso about voting whether or not to continue down the path we are heading with Barry, whether or not we are comfortable with more Ruth Buzzi Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS, whether or not we have a secure Southern border, whether or not full amnesty is granted to those who came here illegally, whether or not we want trillion dollar yearly deficits as far into the future as any NASA computer can predict, whether or not ObamaKare is further shoved up our rectums with more "Catholics vs. The United States Government" Amendment fights, and whether or not we want to continue down the European Socialist path to Ameritopia.

I understand, and agree with the Ron Paul domestic visions, but I'm 98% sure it's not going to happen. So what's next for Paul supporters? Do they do as his pollster suggested today and vote for more Barry, do they waste their vote (but not their conscience) on also-rans like Gary Johnson, or do they hold their nose, walk into the voting both, and vote against the worst President of the past 50 years by selecting the Republican nominee? It remains to be seen as there are 9 months left to decide, but I would highly recommend the Paul gang consider what Barry has done to this once-great nation and what he will do to finish his work should he not be voted against in November. Call it negative, antagonistic, "not what elections are about", yadda, yadda...but it is what it is, no matter how much you loathe it framed this way.

I'll vote against Obama. Writing in anybody is a wasted vote.

BGFalcons82;1081341 wrote:For the sake of discussion, let's assume Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination and will not run 3rd party. Right now, that seems like a pretty safe assumption, but things can change quickly in the Republican primaries, as we've all seen.
Therefore, this election, like the vast majority of 2nd-term elections, is a referendum on Barack Hussein Obama. While it is laudible to only vote "for" somebody, this election is moreso about voting whether or not to continue down the path we are heading with Barry, whether or not we are comfortable with more Ruth Buzzi Ginsburgs on the SCOTUS, whether or not we have a secure Southern border, whether or not full amnesty is granted to those who came here illegally, whether or not we want trillion dollar yearly deficits as far into the future as any NASA computer can predict, whether or not ObamaKare is further shoved up our rectums with more "Catholics vs. The United States Government" Amendment fights, and whether or not we want to continue down the European Socialist path to Ameritopia.

I understand, and agree with the Ron Paul domestic visions, but I'm 98% sure it's not going to happen. So what's next for Paul supporters? Do they do as his pollster suggested today and vote for more Barry, do they waste their vote (but not their conscience) on also-rans like Gary Johnson, or do they hold their nose, walk into the voting both, and vote against the worst President of the past 50 years by selecting the Republican nominee? It remains to be seen as there are 9 months left to decide, but I would highly recommend the Paul gang consider what Barry has done to this once-great nation and what he will do to finish his work should he not be voted against in November. Call it negative, antagonistic, "not what elections are about", yadda, yadda...but it is what it is, no matter how much you loathe it framed this way.

So I should vote for another Bush ? Another terrible president? Im sorry but no thanks. The republican party has turned its back on conservatism so I will vote for who best represents me. I will vote for Johnson if Paul doesnt run third party.

"Vote for more Barry"? You want more Barry? Then vote for Romney, Newt or Santorum. There's your "more Barry".

Let get this straight. We have been told that a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. A vote for Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum equals Obama. I guess its for more years for Barry. I hope no one tries to be cute and write in curious george. That would be a vote for Obama too, and you would be a racist to boot.

majorspark;1081480 wrote:Let get this straight. We have been told that a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama. A vote for Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum equals Obama. I guess its for more years for Barry. I hope no one tries to be cute and write in curious george. That would be a vote for Obama too, and you would be a racist to boot.

Is Pat Paulson still around?

Cleveland Buck;1080663 wrote:Actually, the actions he laid out would definitely conflagrate into something much larger.

[video=youtube;g3bf1H9EZfU][/video]

That guy was kind of an idiot though. He calls Syria a stable nation? They have civil unrest there right now. He says what "they" (I assume he means the US and its allies) did in Libya was exactly what Hitler did in Poland? That dude is an idiot. If that is what the Russians believe they are fools.

WebFire;1081363 wrote:I'll vote against Obama. Writing in anybody is a wasted vote.

Um, thanks for agreeing with me after quoting and treating me like an idiot two posts ago.

bases_loaded;1081629 wrote:Um, thanks for agreeing with me after quoting and treating me like an idiot two posts ago.

No, you were saying (I think it was you, not looking back) to not vote for Paul in the primary because it's a wasted vote. For that I treated you like an idiot.

I said I would vote against Obama in BGFalcons' scenario, which is the general election with no Paul. A write-in vote in the general election is a wasted vote unless the alternative is no vote at all. Then it's just a matter if principle.

dwccrew;1081614 wrote:That guy was kind of an idiot though. He calls Syria a stable nation? They have civil unrest there right now. He says what "they" (I assume he means the US and its allies) did in Libya was exactly what Hitler did in Poland? That dude is an idiot. If that is what the Russians believe they are fools.

The point wasn't about how idiotic or not the guy's views are. The point was that Russia will use force to defend Syria and Iran.

Cleveland Buck;1081665 wrote:The point wasn't about how idiotic or not the guy's views are. The point was that Russia will use force to defend Syria and Iran.

Point taken, however, I think they are posturing. There is no way Russia would use force if the US went into Syria or Iran (which I would be very much opposed to). I believe Russia was allies with Iraq, they didn't take up arms to defend Saddam. I don't see them taking up arms to defend Syria or Iran either.

I hope we never get into the situation to see whether I am right or wrong though. Fuck that side of the world.

This birth control debate is not a good issue for Willard right now as Romneycare contained these exact same mandates there is an uproar about, and he was not the least bit concerned about it.

Look for Santorum to start in on that line of attack, because he has alot of cred on the issue as social conservatism is his biggest strength.

IggyPride00;1081759 wrote:This birth control debate is not a good issue for Willard right now as Romneycare contained these exact same mandates there is an uproar about, and he was not the least bit concerned about it.

Look for Santorum to start in on that line of attack, because he has alot of cred on the issue as social conservatism is his biggest strength.

A fair point, but with Romneycare it was on the state level, in many states we have unique laws that deal with the local populace's preferences. Obama's mandate is federal, the whole country. Federalism is all about local jurisdictions' right to choose, this trumps the entire theory.

Manhattan Buckeye;1081775 wrote:A fair point, but with Romneycare it was on the state level, in many states we have unique laws that deal with the local populace's preferences. Obama's mandate is federal, the whole country. Federalism is all about local jurisdictions' right to choose, this trumps the entire theory.

I agree 100%. I have argured the point many times. But how many primary voters will be able to make this distinciton.

Manhattan Buckeye;1081775 wrote:A fair point, but with Romneycare it was on the state level, in many states we have unique laws that deal with the local populace's preferences. Obama's mandate is federal, the whole country. Federalism is all about local jurisdictions' right to choose, this trumps the entire theory.

I understand that, but when you are trying to draw a contrast as a candidate it doesn't help to have BHO be able to tell the electorate that this guy was for it as well.

One of Wilard's biggest crutches is that he is going to have a much harder time drawing a contrast between himself and BHO than the non-Romney's (who I don't think are necessarily electable).

The federalism argument works to sophisticated voters, but low info voters aren't going to draw such distinctions. They are just going to see BHO run ads saying that Willard was for all the same stuff when he was a governor, so he is a hypocrite for attacking about it. Flip flopper will be a regularly used term.

Remember John Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" gaffe that he was just killed over. There will be plenty of that going on with Willard, and it is not helpful.

The thing about Romney is that he comes off as so gentlemanly. As far as I can tell, Romney has not flip flopped on Romneycare being a state's rights thing. I looked around and I could only ever find him suggesting it should be a model for other states not that it was a model for federal law. Yet, he doesn't come off as a passionate Tenth Amendment Conservative like say, Rick Perry. It seems to me that there are enough conservatives in the primaries at least that, if Romney exhibited some passion about Romneycare being about State's rights/the 10th Amendment issue then he could make some headwinds with it. I feel like people don't believe him when he says he thinks it should be handled at the State level when, as far as I can tell, he has been consistent on that issue at least.

BoatShoes;1081808 wrote:The thing about Romney is that he comes off as so gentlemanly. As far as I can tell, Romney has not flip flopped on Romneycare being a state's rights thing. I looked around and I could only ever find him suggesting it should be a model for other states not that it was a model for federal law. Yet, he doesn't come off as a passionate Tenth Amendment Conservative like say, Rick Perry. It seems to me that there are enough conservatives in the primaries at least that, if Romney exhibited some passion about Romneycare being about State's rights/the 10th Amendment issue then he could make some headwinds with it. I feel like people don't believe him when he says he thinks it should be handled at the State level when, as far as I can tell, he has been consistent on that issue at least.

No, he couldn't.

In 2012, the Republican/Conservative base has zero tolerance for a government mandate of any kind be it on the state or federal level.

The 10th amendment argument falls flat because being supportive of government mandates is not in step with Conservative values.

That is why Romney is boxed in so bad on the issue. Any way he argues it, Republicans don't want to hear it.

The Tea Party had the biggest Congressional victory in 100+ years on the back of outrage over Obamacare. To then nominate someone who ideologically agreed with everything in Obamacare (and implemented it himself when given the chance) cuts off that wave of enthusiasm at the knees.

How do you argue against Obamacare when you are supportive of all the ideas behind it. That is how you get yourself labeled a flip flopper in American politics.

BoatShoes;1081808 wrote:The thing about Romney is that he comes off as so gentlemanly. As far as I can tell, Romney has not flip flopped on Romneycare being a state's rights thing. I looked around and I could only ever find him suggesting it should be a model for other states not that it was a model for federal law. Yet, he doesn't come off as a passionate Tenth Amendment Conservative like say, Rick Perry. It seems to me that there are enough conservatives in the primaries at least that, if Romney exhibited some passion about Romneycare being about State's rights/the 10th Amendment issue then he could make some headwinds with it. I feel like people don't believe him when he says he thinks it should be handled at the State level when, as far as I can tell, he has been consistent on that issue at least.

That might work, except he has no problem with the thousands of other federal programs that violate the 10th amendment of the Constitution, or the ones that violate other parts of it either.

BoatShoes;1081808 wrote:The thing about Romney is that he comes off as so gentlemanly. As far as I can tell, Romney has not flip flopped on Romneycare being a state's rights thing. I looked around and I could only ever find him suggesting it should be a model for other states not that it was a model for federal law. Yet, he doesn't come off as a passionate Tenth Amendment Conservative like say, Rick Perry. It seems to me that there are enough conservatives in the primaries at least that, if Romney exhibited some passion about Romneycare being about State's rights/the 10th Amendment issue then he could make some headwinds with it. I feel like people don't believe him when he says he thinks it should be handled at the State level when, as far as I can tell, he has been consistent on that issue at least.

Rick Perry has used the "S" word. Seccesion. Politically speaking that gives him all the creditibility needed. Willard's big advantage he has on the remaining candidates on on this issue is he has never been a federal politician. Save Paul the rest carry a lot of federal baggage. I agree with Iggy though in the general election Barry will nail him on this. The average voter will not make this distinction.