PPP Poll - Iowa Caucus
12/11 - 12/13

Newt Gingrich 22% (-5)
Ron Paul 21% (+3)
Mitt Romney 16% (0)
Michelle Bachmann 11% (-2)
Rick Perry 9% (0)
Rick Santorum 8% (+2)
John Huntsman 5% (+1)
Gary Johnson 1% (0)


Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion Research Poll - New Hampshire Primary
12/12

Mitt Romney 29% (-10)
Newt Gingrich 24% (+19)
Ron Paul 21% (+10)
John Huntsman 11% (+6)
Michelle Bachmann 4% (-1)
Rick Santorum 2% (+2)
Rick Perry 1% (-1)

I honestly think Ron Paul wins Iowa. And if he wins Iowa, he could win them all given his stance on subsidies.

Also, can't believe people are actually considering Gingrich. Dude is a fraud.

sleeper;1013839 wrote:Also, can't believe people are actually considering Gingrich. Dude is a fraud.

So is Obama and he occupies the White House proving anything is possible.

I like Gingrich so far. I told my mom that's who I'd vote for in the primary when it looked like he had no shot at being the candidate. I also, for real change, like Ron Paul. I think he is a patriot and would make a difference.

rydawg5;1014008 wrote:I like Gingrich so far. I told my mom that's who I'd vote for in the primary when it looked like he had no shot at being the candidate. I also, for real change, like Ron Paul. I think he is a patriot and would make a difference.

Anyone but Obama. It's that simple.

ccrunner609;1012689 wrote:I called Newt since day one....probably the only one on here since September.

And you'll be wrong. He won't even get the nomination to have his chance at Obama. And if he did, he'd almost certainly lose.

ccrunner609;1012805 wrote:No way....Obama wil lose to anyone they put up. Newt would not only beat him in a debate....he would embarras him. Obama is going to stand there and tell you he saved us from a depression and lie about the unemployment rate and Newt is gonna set him straight.

Where is this "Newt is a great debater" stuff coming from? It's like somebody just decided that was true with no evidence and everyone else is playing along.

Romney has completely owned him so far, and he hasn't even really begun a systematic attack. He got Newt to sheepishly admit the individual mandate was his idea on stage for christ's sake.

rydawg5;1014008 wrote:I like Gingrich so far. I told my mom that's who I'd vote for in the primary when it looked like he had no shot at being the candidate. I also, for real change, like Ron Paul. I think he is a patriot and would make a difference.

Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in the primary?

I Wear Pants;1014052 wrote:Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in the primary?

I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet.

rydawg5;1014055 wrote:I haven't decided who I'm voting for yet.

I must have misunderstood what you meant in that quote because I thought you were trying to say you'd vote for Gingrich...but if you really wanted change you'd vote for Ron Paul.

I just fucking wish everyone would vote for who they feel the best candidate is, then maybe we could actually not get the line of shit we've been having in the presidency.

I Wear Pants;1014059 wrote:I must have misunderstood what you meant in that quote because I thought you were trying to say you'd vote for Gingrich...but if you really wanted change you'd vote for Ron Paul.

I just fucking wish everyone would vote for who they feel the best candidate is, then maybe we could actually not get the line of shit we've been having in the presidency.

I did, but I was referring to when the debates first started happening. I like Gingrich and Paul. I meant like "hey, I'd vote for this guy.. especially over frontrunners Romney, Cain, and Perry"

Gingrich and Paul are pretty much exact opposites, so it would be difficult to like them both. Paul favors free markets. Gingrich favors government solutions. Paul favors sound money. Gingrich must prefer the printing press to pay for his visions for this country. Paul favors strong defense over spreading ourselves thin all over the world and meddling where we don't belong. Gingrich wants war with everyone, no matter the cost. Paul defends the Constitution. Gingrich wrote the forward for a book saying the Constitution must die.

Records are infinitely more important than rhetoric. I remember warning people 4 years ago not to vote for Obama because he will take over private industries and explode the debt and the power of the federal government. People laughed it off, but anyone who looked at his record could see he would do it, and he did. That's why I don't pay attention to what any of them say. I look at what they have done.

Cleveland Buck;1014082 wrote:Gingrich and Paul are pretty much exact opposites, so it would be difficult to like them both. Paul favors free markets. Gingrich favors government solutions. Paul favors sound money. Gingrich must prefer the printing press to pay for his visions for this country. Paul favors strong defense over spreading ourselves thin all over the world and meddling where we don't belong. Gingrich wants war with everyone, no matter the cost. Paul defends the Constitution. Gingrich wrote the forward for a book saying the Constitution must die.

Records are infinitely more important than rhetoric. I remember warning people 4 years ago not to vote for Obama because he will take over private industries and explode the debt and the power of the federal government. People laughed it off, but anyone who looked at his record could see he would do it, and he did. That's why I don't pay attention to what any of them say. I look at what they have done.

I don't think it's impossible to like them both. I'm open to different solutions to problems.

rydawg5;1014062 wrote:I did, but I was referring to when the debates first started happening. I like Gingrich and Paul. I meant like "hey, I'd vote for this guy.. especially over frontrunners Romney, Cain, and Perry"

Okay thanks for clarifying.

ccrunner609;1014163 wrote:Obama stuttered all the way through 60 minutes the other day.

In his defense, when you don't have any answers it can be difficult to decide which excuse to go with...

ccrunner609;1014163 wrote:First off........I was 2 months ahead of the whole country and the main stream media on the idea that Newt was going to be the guy.

Congrats on making what will end up being an incorrect prediction 2 months before anyone else.

gut;1014252 wrote:In his defense, when you don't have any answers it can be difficult to decide which excuse to go with...

It's also difficult if you don't have the questions in advance and a teleprompter from which to read your prepared responses.

Fox finally got something right, although they should use that picture for Newt as well as Romney.

When can we get rid of Perry, Santorum, and Bachman? They have NO CHANCE of winning. I don't see how their campaigns are still willing to finance them through this whole mess.

Spread All Day;1001680 wrote:I know i'm late, but Ron Paul is the only logical choice for the GOP nod.

I Wear Pants;1002206 wrote:Our system doesn't work if Paul isn't the nominee.

I Wear Pants;1014052 wrote:Then why the hell wouldn't you vote for Ron Paul in the primary?

There is NOTHING logical about Ron Paul's latest exposure of himself, saying there was glee in the administration after 9/11, because then we could go to war:

And it’s… just think of what happened after 9/11. Immediately, before there was any assessment, there was glee in the administration because now we can invade Iraq. So the war drums beat

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/10/ron-paul-goes-full-metal-truther/

Ron Paul has now moved from saying that 9/11 was our fault (which was despicable enough) to now saying that it’s something our government actually wanted to happen. Put this up there with Ron Paul’s belief that Southeast Asia got much better after we left Vietnam (a viewpoint doubtless shared by millions of massacred Southeast Asians – but hey, at least we trade with Vietnam now) on the all time list of Ron Paul’s contemptible and publicly-expressed beliefs. Add to this the fact that Ron Paul is a liar and a hypocrite on spending, who has built a career larding up appropriations bills with pork for his home district and then casting meaningless votes against their final passage, and I have to confess that I don’t really see the appeal of Ron Paul to Iowa voters. Well, the Republican ones, at least.

Seriously, I expect certain posters on here to worship the man no matter what he says and does, but it's alarming to read all the "everyone else sucks so I'm voting for Paul" posts on here. There is nothing conservative about blaming the US for 9/11, nothing conservative about ignoring an ideology that hates and kills no matter how many US troops "occupy" other countries or how many foreign dictators we've "propped up".

The guy dresses up his rhetoric just enough to appear sane during the debates, and even manages to say a few intelligent things in spite of himself. If "the adminstration marched into Iraq based on lies", as he says, then why didn't the self-professed founder of the Tea Party introduce articles of impeachment against GWBush? Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

The guy voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force after 9/11, and to my knowledge has never introduced a bill to rescind that, nor to impeach the president who lied and misled us. I would vote for a rotten banana peel over Barack Obama, and as such I would grudgingly vote for someone slightly better than a rotten banana peel, Ron Paul, if the choice came down to those two.

And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

True. The Paulists think Dr. Ron is without blemish, but he's a politician just like the rest. Need I say more?

jhay78;1014951 wrote:There is NOTHING logical about Ron Paul's latest exposure of himself, saying there was glee in the administration after 9/11, because then we could go to war:



http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/10/ron-paul-goes-full-metal-truther/



Seriously, I expect certain posters on here to worship the man no matter what he says and does, but it's alarming to read all the "everyone else sucks so I'm voting for Paul" posts on here. There is nothing conservative about blaming the US for 9/11, nothing conservative about ignoring an ideology that hates and kills no matter how many US troops "occupy" other countries or how many foreign dictators we've "propped up".

The guy dresses up his rhetoric just enough to appear sane during the debates, and even manages to say a few intelligent things in spite of himself. If "the adminstration marched into Iraq based on lies", as he says, then why didn't the self-professed founder of the Tea Party introduce articles of impeachment against GWBush? Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

The guy voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force after 9/11, and to my knowledge has never introduced a bill to rescind that, nor to impeach the president who lied and misled us. I would vote for a rotten banana peel over Barack Obama, and as such I would grudgingly vote for someone slightly better than a rotten banana peel, Ron Paul, if the choice came down to those two.

Ron Paul said there was glee that the administration had their excuse to invade Iraq, which is true. He said obviously no one was gleeful about the attack on 9/11, and never said that the government wanted the attack to happen.

You consistently say Paul blamed the US for 9/11, but I've never seen him say that anywhere. Why don't you share your source? Saying that our meddling in the affairs of other countries creates and motivates our enemies is not blaming anyone for anything, it is just the simple truth.

And I don't know what conservatism has to do with blaming someone for 9/11. Actually, I do. Nothing. Now what isn't conservative is borrowing and printing money endlessly so that we can spread our troops all around the world and leave us weaker than we have ever been if a major threat were to come up. If the Chinese invaded California we would be completely bankrupt and fucked with our military overseas telling others how to behave.

You can support whoever you want. If you like government solutions to problems, endless money printing, endless wars, and the end of your civil liberties, then Ron Paul is not for you. Newt Romney Obama will do you just fine. You just won't have much credibility if you try to call yourself a conservative.

jhay78;1014951 wrote: And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

What are the other choices? Third party? I suppose, though many of them support the same things.

believer;1014975 wrote:True. The Paulists think Dr. Ron is without blemish, but he's a politician just like the rest. Need I say more?

He's obviously not without blemish, but he is exactly what we need right now, while the others are no different from what we have right now.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:There is NOTHING logical about Ron Paul's latest exposure of himself, saying there was glee in the administration after 9/11, because then we could go to war:



http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/10/ron-paul-goes-full-metal-truther/



Seriously, I expect certain posters on here to worship the man no matter what he says and does, but it's alarming to read all the "everyone else sucks so I'm voting for Paul" posts on here. There is nothing conservative about blaming the US for 9/11, nothing conservative about ignoring an ideology that hates and kills no matter how many US troops "occupy" other countries or how many foreign dictators we've "propped up".

The guy dresses up his rhetoric just enough to appear sane during the debates, and even manages to say a few intelligent things in spite of himself. If "the adminstration marched into Iraq based on lies", as he says, then why didn't the self-professed founder of the Tea Party introduce articles of impeachment against GWBush? Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

The guy voted in favor of the Authorization to use Military Force after 9/11, and to my knowledge has never introduced a bill to rescind that, nor to impeach the president who lied and misled us. I would vote for a rotten banana peel over Barack Obama, and as such I would grudgingly vote for someone slightly better than a rotten banana peel, Ron Paul, if the choice came down to those two.

And it's absurd to lay out the false choices of "Empire building, war-mongering" or Ron Paul, and "Gingrich/Romney/big government/statist" or Ron Paul. Those aren't your only choices.

Yes they are. All the other candidates have shown that they would enthusiastically show continued support for the current wars ad infinitum and several have talked about engaging in new operations. It's insane. Obama talks as if he is rational about the wars and says the correct things but so far he has supported them just like a Republican.

jhay78;1014951 wrote:Why does the guy lead from behind, wait until things go south in Iraq, when the war was unpopular, and then say "Aha- see what you get when you invade and occupy foreign countries? See what happens when warmongers are in charge?"

[video=youtube;GOp1MmYOkms][/video]