2016 Polls: Republican Candidate

[SunnyslopeIII]

Well, whether they would or not is beside the point; they don’t have the resources of the two major parties who each have their own networks of pundits and journalists to form the firing squads.

A lot of good pundits have disappeared because they wont join one party or the other and become partisan, from Phylis Schaffly to Paul Craig Roberts and Joseph Sobran.

Maybe they will network with a major third party effort but I doubt it.

Some people just wont sell out.

Lol.

 

[ishii]

The past two moderates did fine until they said things that turned the general public off to them.  This happens on both sides and the media publicizes it to the point where people start to look at other options.

I’m not familiar with what McCain said to turn off the general public. I do recall that in 2012 much was made in the media about a war on women - even to the point that a rather confused Romney was asked in a primary debate if he favored outlawing contraception. I do think the Romneys comment about so many getting entitlements (true that it was) played into the hands of liberal demagogues.

Walker is anti union for starters and is perceived (right or wrong) as coming across as being arrogant; additionally Walker favors extreme cuts in social services which could affect not only low income people but seniors as well… Jindal supports chemical castration for convicted sex predators, supports capital punishment for rapists and murderers, supports charter schools being run by faith-based organizations and the list goes on and on. For many this is viewed as being too extreme.

I was not aware that Walker favors extreme cuts in social programs. Since you’re making the charge could you back it up with examples? Jindal favors chemical castration for sex predators. Is the controversy because that’s too lenient? Federal law already prohibits publically funded schools from religious discrimination or instruction. I think what Jindal is doing is recognizing that groups that are religious in nature might be able to help schools improve. If the list goes on and on, why not list a few more? How about his pro-life views? Too extreme? Perhaps those on left might view his positions as too extreme.

Gamewell, its very easy to throw out talking points. However, providing specific examples is much more convincing. Perhaps you think Jindal and Walker are extreme, and are assuming that others do as well?

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

Put a stop to ‘all the things’; which things like Romneycare, I mean Obamacare, like pulling the rug out from under the pro-life movement like he did in Mass where he said he was privately a pro-lifer but did not support making it illegal? Nancy Pelosi is that ‘pro-life’. He also passed laws restricting gun rights and cleared the way for gay marriage when he could have stopped it.

No, Romney would not have stopped anything Obama has been doing, instead he would have consolidated Obamas changes.

So rhetoric and symbolic gestures replace actual historical laws passed and things DONE in real life?

Straw man; sad to see.

AS if the VP really has the power to affect policy, yeah, right.

I posted what I believed and it was nothing like that. Are these misrepresentations of what I have said purposeful and deliberate?

All one has to believe is that Romney finds abortion personally immoral but one of those things that he thinks he cannot force on others by law and thus opposes making it illegal.

That is not pro-life, btw.

You don’t have to believe anything of the kind. Pro-Lifers are using the same logic that you are; better a lesser evil than a full evil. But if we can change the choice from the lesser of two evil then why don’t we? Voting for the lesser evil is still voting FOR evil and I don’t do that any more and millions of others agree with me.

Wow, now I am a true believer?

No, there is a wide range of people that take bad positions on crucial issues. They are likely nice people and the sort of good people that can go and vote for millions more babies to be killed within the womb just because they don’t think of it as that. They think the baby was prevented from ever being born and so it wasn’t murder. Then there are the nice people who don’t want to keep anyone from hunting deer, but why does anyone need a hand gun, etc. That is fine and dandy and all for a private person…but I will never vote for them for office.

The GOP is telling me I need to broaden my views as they broaden the tent. NO I don’t.

I will vote for the candidates that agree with my crucial issues and get the majority right on other issues, but I will not vote for a gun grabber, or a baby killer, or a Big government conservative or anyone who wants to let gay marriage remain the law where the courts have forced it on the public.

Too bad so sad, I will go elsewhere as will millions of other people just like me, so-called ‘Values Voters’. Those are the issues I find most important and I wont vote GOP just because the guy isn’t a Democrat.

Why is that so hard for you to understand and repeat back to me as I have stated it instead of engaging in repeated straw man rebutals to what I have never said?

Again, I am not going to vote for a third party**. I put a lot of effort into supporting the Liberterian Party, but when they had the chance to do some things in several states they remained silent and passed on the opportunity. The same goes for Ron Paul who could have contested Romney for Virginia back in 2012 and he totally ignored his opportunity and did not take advantage of several situations.**

I wont vote for losers that are happy to lose year after year after year and never rock the boat.

But if Palin, Huckabee, and others form a rival ‘Values Voter’ type of party and hook up with the Tea Party, I am in. The GOP is worse than useless as an opposition party and they have proven that by their inaction with regard to Obama’s rule by EO.

. I put a lot of effort into supporting the Liberterian Party, but when they had the chance to do some things in several states they remained silent and passed on the opportunity. The same goes for Ron Paul who could have contested Romney for Virginia back in 2012 and he totally ignored his opportunity and did not take advantage of several situations.

Libertarian Platform on abortion:

1.5 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

lp.org/platform

In other words, abortion on demand with the caveat that government will not be involved.

For the record, 2008 is basically the same position. This may be their conventional way of looking at the issue, thus, if you say you support the Libertarian Party, sorry, now we might question whether you have indeed supported the right to abortion on demand, even if inadvertently.

Now to other issues, abortion clinics have been closed in so many states, notably in this past year, Wisconsin and Texas. There are so many.

Yet, you cite President Obama’s EO, Republicans only control one house, the House of Representatives.

Even Governor Christie has defunded Planned Parenthood who have a very negative opinion on him through their press releases.

So you can talk about what you are unhappy about, in some ways, it still puts you on the side that noble efforts by some Republicans have made to close down abortion mills and defund Planned Parenthood. You don’t care to note that.

Politics overall, is a grassroots effort, we can’t be happy with everything. After so many states have defunded planned parenthood, I have no doubt Romney/Ryan would have sought to do it nationally.

Whether you like it or not or the candidate at the very top, the Republican party now has an established record of pro-life accomplishment and in very recent years like this year.

 

[ishii]

Well, whether they would or not is beside the point; they don’t have the resources of the two major parties who each have their own networks of pundits and journalists to form the firing squads.

A lot of good pundits have disappeared because they wont join one party or the other and become partisan, from Phylis Schaffly to Paul Craig Roberts and Joseph Sobran.

Maybe they will network with a major third party effort but I doubt it.

Some people just wont sell out.

Ha. Paul Craig Roberts and Joseph Sobran. Paul Craig Roberts: "Today the US media is owned by 5 giant companies in which pro-Zionist Jews have disproportionate influence." I believe Joseph Sobran was a holocaust skeptic and also happens to be dead. Phylis Schlaffly is 90 years old. I think you’ll have to wait a while for your major 3rd party network to happen.

Ishii

 

[Path_Finder]

Ron Paul may have been pro-life enough for me but I certainly wouldn’t say the same for 2012 Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

 

[ishii]

Libertarian Platform on abortion:

In other words, abortion on demand with the caveat that government will not be involved.

For the record, 2008 is basically the same position. This may be their conventional way of looking at the issue, thus, if you say you support the Libertarian Party, sorry, now we might question whether you have indeed supported the right to abortion on demand, even if inadvertently.

Now to other issues, abortion clinics have been closed in so many states, notably in this past year, Wisconsin and Texas. There are so many.

Yet, you cite President Obama’s EO, Republicans only control one house, the House of Representatives.

Even Governor Christie has defunded Planned Parenthood who have a very negative opinion on him through their press releases.

So you can talk about what you are unhappy about, in some ways, it still puts you on the side that noble efforts by some Republicans have made to close down abortion mills and defund Planned Parenthood. You don’t care to note that.

Politics overall, is a grassroots effort, we can’t be happy with everything. After so many states have defunded planned parenthood, I have no doubt Romney/Ryan would have sought to do it nationally.

Whether you like it or not or the candidate at the very top, the Republican party now has an established record of pro-life accomplishment and in very recent years like this year.

Well said Pathfinder. I think I’ve figured it out: the true believers hate the Republican party more than anything - more than they hate the left. That hatred I think prevents them from thinking logically. As you’ve pointed out, the true believers apparently would vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate of the Libertarian party if it meant defeating the “phony, evil Republicans.” I do think that some are receptive to reason and logic. However, clearly not all are. For the sake of our country and the 2016 election I truly hope that cooler heads prevail among the true believers and that enough decide that the GOP - even if it nominates a dreaded moderate - is not the enemy.

Ishii

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Well said Pathfinder. I think I’ve figured it out:** the true believers hate the Republican party more than anything - more than they hate the left.** That hatred I think prevents them from thinking logically. As you’ve pointed out, the true believers apparently would vote for a pro-abortion rights candidate of the Libertarian party if it meant defeating the “phony, evil Republicans.” I do think that some are receptive to reason and logic. However, clearly not all are. For the sake of our country and the 2016 election I truly hope that cooler heads prevail among the true believers and that enough decide that the GOP - even if it nominates a dreaded moderate - is not the enemy.

Ishii

Yep. There is a Catholic blogger that I used to follow that fits that description. He voted for Ron Paul in 2012, even though he wasn’t on the ballot.

 

[ishii]

And the GOP partisans do the same thing to the Democratic nominees as well.

When an independent comes along he gets it from BOTH sides in a partisan cross fire!

When I remember what they did to Ross Perot’s reputation, I cringe at the lack of honesty in our press that that whole thing displayed.

The media, with the exception of Fox news and talk radio, is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Republican. Perot’s campaign in 1992 was a joke. His senior campaign advisers - heavyweights like Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins started quitting as Perot’s numbers started to nose-dive. Perot ended up blaming his quitting the race on a wild claim that the Bush campaign was going to sabotage his daughter’s wedding. :hypno::hypno::hypno:

Whatever the media did to Perot’s reputation, what Perot did to himself was far worse and cringe worthy. We are extremely lucky that he didn’t not by some fluke, become our president. Dodged a bullet I’d say.

Ishii

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

The media, with the exception of Fox news and talk radio, is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Republican. Perot’s campaign in 1992 was a joke. His senior campaign advisers - heavyweights like Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins started quitting as Perot’s numbers started to nose-dive. Perot ended up blaming his quitting the race on a wild claim that the Bush campaign was going to sabotage his daughter’s wedding. :hypno::hypno::hypno:

Whatever the media did to Perot’s reputation, what Perot did to himself was far worse and cringe worthy. We are extremely lucky that he didn’t not by some fluke, become our president. Dodged a bullet I’d say.

Ishii

Couldn’t it be reasonably be said that Perot helped Clinton get elected?

Bill Clinton 44,909,806 votes
George Bush 39,104,550 votes
Ross Perot 19,743,821 votes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

 

[powerofk]

Couldn’t it be reasonably be said that Perot helped Clinton get elected?

Bill Clinton 44,909,806 votes
George Bush 39,104,550 votes
Ross Perot 19,743,821 votes

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

Actually, though the GOP has often blamed Perot for Clinton’s win in 1992, when Perot dropped out of the race briefly, Clinton’s numbers SKYROCKETED. In some ways, Perot was as (or even more) “Liberal” than Clinton. For instance, Perot was pro-“choice” (as was Clinton),and he was anti-NAFTA (Clinton signed NAFTA after GHW Bush proposed it and the Dem-controlled Senate ratified it; NAFTA was then - and continues to be - very much opposed by unions). The GOP primarily blames Perot for the simple fact that Perot was a self-made businessman - the type of person who is often considered the “base” of the traditional GOP.

 

[ishii]

Actually, though the GOP has often blamed Perot for Clinton’s win in 1992, when Perot dropped out of the race briefly, Clinton’s numbers SKYROCKETED. In some ways, Perot was as (or even more) “Liberal” than Clinton. For instance, Perot was pro-“choice” (as was Clinton),and he was anti-NAFTA (Clinton signed NAFTA after GHW Bush proposed it and the Dem-controlled Senate ratified it; NAFTA was then - and continues to be - very much opposed by unions). The GOP primarily blames Perot for the simple fact that Perot was a self-made businessman - the type of person who is often considered the “base” of the traditional GOP.

Its hard to say. Some say that his effect on Clinton and Bush was pretty much equal. It depends on whose analysis you believe. I think its safe to say that Clinton/Gore had the support of liberals and Democrats. Bush would have never gotten their votes. The votes of independents and disgruntled Republicans, however, was up for grabs. Its possible that Bush might have received more than Clinton, had Perot not gotten involved. Who knows.

Regardless, we will have a clear choice in 2016. I don’t foresee a 3rd party challenger muddying up the waters. It will be a clear choice between more leftism (but with a different face) or more common sense policies. Hopefully otherwise good Catholics will not stay at home pouting because their favorite guy didn’t get the nomination.

Ishii

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

Its hard to say. Some say that his effect on Clinton and Bush was pretty much equal. It depends on whose analysis you believe. I think its safe to say that Clinton/Gore had the support of liberals and Democrats. Bush would have never gotten their votes. The votes of independents and disgruntled Republicans, however, was up for grabs. Its possible that Bush might have received more than Clinton, had Perot not gotten involved. Who knows.

Regardless, we will have a clear choice in 2016. I don’t foresee a 3rd party challenger muddying up the waters. It will be a clear choice between more leftism (but with a different face) or more common sense policies. Hopefully otherwise good Catholics will not stay at home pouting because their favorite guy didn’t get the nomination.

Ishii

I hope you’re right. I personally suspect the “true believers” will mount another assault on whatever GOP candidate makes it through the primaries. They get angry when you call them on it, but they prefer a Democrat, since their “perfect” (nonexistent) candidate can’t win.

 

[RGCheek]

Libertarian Platform on abortion:

In other words, abortion on demand with the caveat that government will not be involved.

It is not that simple. A libertarian balances the right of the individual with the right of other individuals impacted. So just because you own the forest on your 10 acres of property that does not give you the right to simply burn it down and full the river your run off goes into with silt. Similarly, just because it is your body that does not give you the right to simply kill an unborn baby since the mother engaged in reproductive activity voluntarily, unless of course she was raped.

libertarianfaq.org/index.php?title=Are_libertarians_pro_choice_or_pro_life%3F

Libertarians state that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. Therefore, if a woman becomes pregnant because she had voluntary sex, any conceived child is the direct result of this voluntary action of the parents.

A failing contraceptive does not remove the parents’ responsibility, as anyone can know in advance that no contraceptive is perfect. In that case abortion can only be justified by the pro-choice argument when a woman becomes pregnant involuntarily, i.e. through rape.

Libertarians also state that no one is allowed to actively harm another human being. Because the parents were actively involved in giving life to another human being they are not allowed to let it die.

The libertarian abortion discussion now centers on the question at what stage of development the fertilized human egg cell can be considered a human being. Physical completeness and full mental abilities, i.e. a free will and the ability to reason, of normal people can never be the standard as this would classify very small children and disabled adults as not being human and having no right to their own life.

I think of my own values as 1) Christian 2) Catholic 3) the perspective of a husband and a father 4) a citizen of the USA 5) a socially conservative libertarian.

I am not partisan nor am I making any money or gaining any advantage in my political opinions.

For the record, 2008 is basically the same position. This may be their conventional way of looking at the issue, thus, if you say you support the Libertarian Party, sorry, now we might question whether you have indeed supported the right to abortion on demand, even if inadvertently.

Now to other issues, abortion clinics have been closed in so many states, notably in this past year, Wisconsin and Texas. There are so many.

Yet, you cite President Obama’s EO, Republicans only control one house, the House of Representatives.

Even Governor Christie has defunded Planned Parenthood who have a very negative opinion on him through their press releases.

So you can talk about what you are unhappy about, in some ways, it still puts you on the side that noble efforts by some Republicans have made to close down abortion mills and defund Planned Parenthood. You don’t care to note that.

Politics overall, is a grassroots effort, we can’t be happy with everything. After so many states have defunded planned parenthood, I have no doubt Romney/Ryan would have sought to do it nationally.

Whether you like it or not or the candidate at the very top, the Republican party now has an established record of pro-life accomplishment and in very recent years like this year.

The Republican Party is a mixed bag of contentions. MY Presidential voting record was 1976 Reagan (write-in), 1980 and 84 Reagan, 1988 Bush the Elder, 1992 and 96 Ross Perot, 2000 and 2004 W Bush, 2008 McCain/Palin, 2012 I did a protest vote for the Green Party if I recall correctly.

I decided after Romney thugged his way into the GOP nomination with massively funded third party groups smearing all his opponents for him, I would vote for anyone rather than that man.

 

[RGCheek]

I hope you’re right. I personally suspect the “true believers” will mount another assault on whatever GOP candidate makes it through the primaries. They get angry when you call them on it, but they prefer a Democrat, since their “perfect” (nonexistent) candidate can’t win.

You saying it is impossible to find a Republican that is pro-life, pro-gun rights, in favor of smaller government and is also in favor of strong security because they dont exist?

Then you say that they cant win anyway?

Such candidates are the ONLY candidates that have won for the Republicans historically since 1973.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

2012 I did a protest vote for the Green Party if I recall correctly.

I decided after Romney thugged his way into the GOP nomination with massively funded third party groups smearing all his opponents for him, I would vote for anyone rather than that man.

Wow…the Green Party. You can call it a “protest vote,” if you want, but bottom line - you helped elect Barack Obama.

 

[RGCheek]

The media, with the exception of Fox news and talk radio, is overwhelmingly liberal and anti-Republican. Perot’s campaign in 1992 was a joke. His senior campaign advisers - heavyweights like Hamilton Jordan and Ed Rollins started quitting as Perot’s numbers started to nose-dive. Perot ended up blaming his quitting the race on a wild claim that the Bush campaign was going to sabotage his daughter’s wedding. :hypno::hypno::hypno:

That was typical Bush style for some of his staffers to hire operatives to go and get drunk at a wedding and cause a scene. You really think that that kind of ‘dirty pool’ doesn’t go on in politics? Sure it does, like Romneys men handled Palins preparation for her interview with Couric in 2008. Some said that Romneys men deliberately sabotaged her to undercut her a s a possible rival to Romney in 2012.

Here are a couple of articles that discusses some of the shenanigans pulled by the GOPe as they passed rules that makes the GOP basically a party that is run from the top down.

texasgopvote.com/issues/stop-big-government/evidence-shows-rnc-rigged-vote-rule-change-republican-convention-2012-004544

forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/07/dramatic-little-known-gop-rule-change-takes-choice-of-presidential-candidate-away-from-rank-and-file-republicans-and-hands-it-to-party-elite/

Whatever the media did to Perot’s reputation, what Perot did to himself was far worse and cringe worthy. We are extremely lucky that he didn’t not by some fluke, become our president. Dodged a bullet I’d say.

Ishii

Yes, right this nutty guy who is a self made billionaire is just too loco to be POTUS.

/sarcasm

The polarization that has occurred in our country that hammers down good capable men who are not part of the polarized party system is going to seriously harm us before there is enough motivation to repair the underlying cause of said damage.

 

[RGCheek]

Wow…the Green Party. You can call it a “protest vote,” if you want, but bottom line - you helped elect Barack Obama.

No, I helped elect no one.

This irrational assertion that because I did not vote for candidate A means I helped elect candidate B when I didn’t vote for either one of them is just priceless.



No, it was the Romney camps thuggery and purchase of the GOP nomination that cause Obama to win re-election.

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

No, I helped elect no one.

This irrational assertion that because I did not vote for candidate A means I helped elect candidate B when I didn’t vote for either one of them is just priceless.

Yeah, yeah, yeah… I’ve heard that from every voter who chose not to vote, vote third party, etc. It’s a simple inability to understand the mathematics of voting. And, yes, such inability is priceless.

I have more respect for those who voted for a purely Catholic candidate than another imperfect choice. Green Party? Seriously? What a waste…

 

[ishii]

Why is that so hard for you to understand and repeat back to me as I have stated it instead of engaging in repeated straw man rebutals to what I have never said?

But if Palin, Huckabee, and others form a rival ‘Values Voter’ type of party and hook up with the Tea Party, I am in. The GOP is worse than useless as an opposition party and they have proven that by their inaction with regard to Obama’s rule by EO.

You said about Romney:

Romney is pro-life like Pelosi is pro-life; personally opposed to murdering unborn babies but opposed to making it illegal too. That isn’t pro-life, that is pro-choice and he has said so.

And you said about the pro-life organizations that have worked for decades to end legal abortion:

These pro-life organizations are so joined at the hip to the GOP now*** it wouldn’t matter who they nominated***.

So manifestly for you it really is a matter of the pro-life groups being either stupid/gullible or frauds. They’ve devoted their energies and efforts to reform our abortion laws. They enthusiastically supported Romney for president. But they just don’t get it - but you do, by golly. Or, they really do get it and they are frauds - because even if the GOP nominated an avowed pro-choicer they would still support the GOP, right? Is that about it? So you see, its not about straw men arguments at all. I am merely reminding you what you said and using your own logic. If you find that disturbing then I guess you should.

Furthermore, if Romney is the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi (“abortion is a sacred right”) then what does that make Paul Ryan? Or Robert Bork? To me it would mean that they are either stupid/ignorant (as they just aren’t smart enough to see the real Romney that RGCheek does). Or they really see Romney for what he is and don’t care. They are frauds.

Stupid or frauds. Those are the choices based on your logic, RGCheek. Paul Ryan is a smart man. Is he a true pro-lifer? I will not question his motives as you do. Ditto for Robert Bork - a brilliant man and pro-lifer/constructionist. Who am I to suggest that Robert Bork was a fraud? I think we should all be careful to not engage in calumny, don’t you, RGCheeK?

Regarding Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin leading a new 3rd party allied with the Tea Partiers to give the true believers a party and perfect candidate they can finally support: recall that Huckabee and Sarah Palin both supported Romney for president. So you might have to go back and find a different set of leaders.

Ishii

 

[SunnyslopeIII]

No, it was the Romney camps thuggery and purchase of the GOP nomination that cause Obama to win re-election.

:yawn: “…purchase of the GOP nomination…” That’s what all the losers say, when someone else defeats them in the primaries.