December Republican Primary Poll

[rlg94086]

Honestly I am amazed that people take this so seriously. I believe it was just an off the cuff remark, not intended seriously as a bet but at a level to show he was confident that he was correct about the book.

It’s funny what remark or perceived gaffe gets all the ink. This was meaningless to me and I think only the MSM ginning it up to get more eyeballs on their “news” shows. Is this truly a concern? Are we unaware that Mitt (and the rest of the field) has substantial wealth? Now we’ve got Newt and Mitt slinging mud about Tiffany’s bills and Mitt’s ‘bankrupting everyone’ during his tenure at Bain Capital. Neither is relevant to the race. The election isn’t the latest reality show. If silly overblown drama is what people want stick to the Kardashians.

Lisa

Exactly. Its “funny” in a “stupid” sort of way.

BTW…Newt hurt himself with some regarding his Bain Capital remark. Some folks are complaining “are you against Capitalism?”

It would be nice to get back to issues, rather than two millionaires arguing about who is less in-touch with the common man.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate in the GOP race.

Yes, he’s about the only politician in American that has been preaching the same thing for 30 years or so. Someone calling him inconsistent is telling…

 

[rlg94086]

Personally I don’t care. I wouldn’t care if he actually bet 10,000 or a million, or even 10 million. It is his money. He earned it.

My point is that is probably offensive to the family who makes 10,000 dollars per year. That to them, what could conceivably be a bet to him would be the equivalent of betting their lives. It just wasn’t the right thing to say. It opened a door for a quarter of Americans to be offended.

If they are offended by that, then they are stupid and shouldn’t vote.

 

[karebear92]

Really? I understand your point, just think that people LOOK for reasons to be offended thanks to the media blowing sound bites out of all proportion… Our politically correct society has raised this to an art form… making mountains out of molehills. I doubt if many were TRULY offended by the remark, but when told they SHOULD be offended stomp off in high dudgeon. The Victimization Complex is ruining this country.

Not directing this to you personally, just the way this entire campaign has gone, every week we have the latest comment that has killed X or Y’s campaign. It’s getting very tiresome.

Lisa

I actually agree with this, but the president is supposed to represent America, not change it, and that wasn’t the best representation of America.

Yes, that is the problem with Obama. When he said he was going to change America, he didn’t necessarily mean how our country is run. He has changed how America thinks. This is what happens when Washington or the Supreme Court has the power to create and enforce laws (or the opposite). Laws are supposed to represent American morality, but when the government begins to represent what Americans “should” think, then the American mindset begins to change.

Sorry that was a little bit of a rant. My point is it probably wasn’t the greatest remark, and I am sure he would say the same.

 

[rlg94086]

Ron Paul is the most consistent candidate in the GOP race.

Yes, he’s about the only politician in American that has been preaching the same thing for 30 years or so. Someone calling him inconsistent is telling…

He has certainly been the most consistent of the big three, when it comes to poll results - between 5 and 10%. His 5-point spread is only slightly less than Romney in consistency. Newt has been very inconsistent - from a low of 6 to a high of 35.

realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-1452.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

No, it’s crazy to say that any sovereign nation has the ‘right’ to have nuclear weapons. I think if we could ‘unring the bell’ and prevent the loon in No-Ko from having nukes or the Islamists in Pakistan, we would do it. Much easier to keep the genie in the bottle than try to get him back in once he gets out. Whatever we can do to keep the mullahs in Iran from getting their hands on a nuke is IMO a good thing for us and for the entire world. Paul acts as if there is no evil in the world and that if we just mind our own business, everyone else will do the same. History debunks that theory.

I think there is a good middle ground between folding our tents and coming home from every corner of the globe,and providing a strong defense of both ourselves and others. There is a deterrent effect of some of our troops’ installations in certain ‘hot spots’ around the world. And I hope I never see the day when the USA refuses to “intervene” in a humanitarin crisis.

I think Rep Paul is too far off the edge of non-intervention because we do have interests that extend beyond our borders. His policies IMO are dangerous.

Lisa

In a town hall yesterday, Ron Paul said that Iran is acting in a “rational manner” by threatening to disrupt the world oil supply in the Persian Gulf. He believes Iran is only defending itself from the provocations of the West and told the crowd that if he were president, he’d be “provoking them a lot less.”

“We’re just looking for trouble,” Paul said. “We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.”

Since Paul believes that Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons to defend itself, he characterized Iran’s response as saying “we can’t really defend ourselves so we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf.”

Here’s the full video:

(video at source)

------ How would I deal with the threat or the so-called threat of the Iranians, that they are going to disrupt the oil supply?

Well I’d be provoking them a lot less because they’re reacting to the provoking of the West saying “we’re gonna put on sanctions”. **We have them surrounded with nuclear weapons and we’re claiming that they’re gonna build a nuclear weapon and there’s no evidence for this.
**
So we’re just looking for trouble. We’re building the war propaganda against Iran just as we did against Iraq.

And it’s the march on. You know it’s Libya and it’s in Egypt and now we’re involved in Syria, now we’re sending troops into Africa. And also, of course we’re still in Iraq, we’re into Pakistan and we’ve been in Afghanistan for a long time.

And people want to go to war against Iran. And I think they’re reacting to the provocations of so many other people saying that “we’re liable to bomb you because you are building a nuclear weapon.”** But our CIA doesn’t confirm that nor does the UN confirm that.**

So they’re acting actually in a rational manner because they’re saying “they’re gonna attack us and start bombing us”. They have to say “well, we don’t have any nuclear weapons, we can’t really defend ourselves. So we might sink a boat, sink a ship out there in the Persian Gulf”, hoping that we might back off.

I just think we’re treating the whole thing wrong. …

freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2820817/posts

Like I said in another thread…

Here are your choices:

Democrat: Start a war today and bankrupt the country tomorrow.

Republican: Go to war tomorrow and bankrupt the country next week.



Or start listening to rational logic and get on the road to saving your own country instead of worrying about others.

 

[LisaA]

Exactly. Its “funny” in a “stupid” sort of way.

BTW…Newt hurt himself with some regarding his Bain Capital remark. Some folks are complaining “are you against Capitalism?”

It would be nice to get back to issues, rather than two millionaires arguing about who is less in-touch with the common man.

Amen to that…love Romney but did not need to hear he used a bucket for a toilet during his Mormon mission…ewwwww!!!

Ditto on the Bain Capital remark. It sounded like it was coming from the DNC. Totally out of line IMO, false and misleading and unnecessarily pejorative. We are seeing the bad old Newt coming out here again which is a shame. The reality is that some of the businesses failed and that’s what happens in a free market system. Others including Staples were very successful. The mudslinging, particularly with untruths, is tacky and destructive…and as the saying goes, don’t stir up mud because it will stick to you too.

Lisa

 

[rlg94086]

Amen to that…love Romney but did not need to hear he used a bucket for a toilet during his Mormon mission…ewwwww!!!

Thanks for that, Lisa. I hadn’t heard it, until now!

 

[SwissGuard25]

Before I list anything, I would like to say the mentality he has fostered since he started to run for President, is one of the worst things he could have done to this country. Adding fuel to the fire of a society that’s already divisive, his election alone made it even more so.

As far as what he’s done…he’s blown through over 6 trillion dollars in debt, more than this country has spent since it’s inception. I don’t even think they know what they’ve spent that money on, partly because Joe Biden was in charge of some of it and I doubt he knows how to balance his own checkbook.

He’s a heavy progressive, the hard core liberals here can say what they want about him having to govern as a centrist. What he’s had to do and what he would love to do is two different things and they would not have been able to do it any better or worse depending on your pov.

So you’re blaming Liberals for the bad economy?
May I remind you that Bush in his 8 years of Presidency spent 5 trillion.
In fact the debt only started going up when Bush became president
usdebtclock.org/index.html

 

[bbarrick8383]

So you’re blaming Liberals for the bad economy?
May I remind you that Bush in his 8 years of Presidency spent 5 trillion.
In fact the debt only started going up when Bush became president
usdebtclock.org/index.html

No I wasn’t, but yes I will. I will also call George Bush/Republicans liberal light if that helps.

Here is a very interesting and short video I recommend everyone watch:

youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[iloveangels]

Yes, it’s crazy to not be nosy and not want to intervene in other countries affairs.

Nah, it’s not only that. He doesn’t have any idea how the US has to operate in the world, even if we don’t go in anywhere or say anything. He’s a complete and utter isolationist. And a naive one at that.

 

[iloveangels]

Speaking of Ron Paul,

The last thing we need is yet another big-mouthed yokel who has no idea what he’s doing in the White House and no coherent anything except me-me-me. That’s what we’ve got right now.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Nah, it’s not only that. He doesn’t have any idea how the US has to operate in the world, even if we don’t go in anywhere or say anything. He’s a complete and utter isolationist. And a naive one at that.

I really had no idea how many people were ignorant of the idea of isolationism as opposed to non interventionism.

Ronald Reagan would greatly disagree with you on Ron Paul and foreign policy.

Foreign policy

Paul’s views are generally attributed to those of non-interventionism, which is the belief that the United States should avoid entangling alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.[citation needed] Paul is quoted as stating “America [should] not interfere militarily, financially, or covertly in the** internal affairs **of other nations”, while advocating “open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations”.[6] Ronald Reagan spoke in support of Paul’s foreign policy views, stating "Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."[7] Daniel Ellsberg, famous for releasing the Pentagon Papers, has said of Paul: “On foreign policy, on the Constitution, on Homeland Security, on intervention, he speaks very well.”[8] Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich has said that he and Paul “agree tremendously on international policy”.[9]

 

[bbarrick8383]

Speaking of Ron Paul,

The last thing we need is yet another big-mouthed yokel who has no idea what he’s doing in the White House and no coherent anything except me-me-me. That’s what we’ve got right now.

Sometimes people say things that make me wonder if they even know who they are talking about.

Like I did with Sarah Palin, I’ve watched probably hours of footage of Ron Paul. I have no illusions in believing that he will win the election, at this point nobody knows who it will be. Obviously, the polls and the odds are higher with others, but that changes with the wind.

That being said, I’m more interested promoting Ron Paul’s ideas rather than candidate Ron Paul. Until we start heeding his warnings, as he predicted the housing problem, we get what we are asking for. Nobody wants to change politics, for several reasons. Either they buy into one party or the other to the point that they will continue to support the same type of candidates or they are too foolish to take the time and learn what’s going on around them.

Electing Newt or Mitt is doing nothing but going for the win. It’s like a double elimination tournament. Just because you won the last game doesn’t mean anything, because you’ve still lost the tournament.

Either way, I’m sure I will walk into the booth and vote Republican as well. Only time will teach us a hard lesson and I might as well put it off as long as possible.

 

[rlg94086]

Electing Newt or Mitt is doing nothing but going for the win. It’s like a double elimination tournament. Just because you won the last game doesn’t mean anything, because you’ve still lost the tournament.

So…are you saying that people should vote for Ron Paul instead of going for the win?

 

[mary_bobo]

So you’re blaming Liberals for the bad economy?
May I remind you that Bush in his 8 years of Presidency spent 5 trillion.
In fact the debt only started going up when Bush became president
usdebtclock.org/index.html

Since we are reminding people, let me mention that Obama has run up the debt higher than all the other presidents combined.

 

[bbarrick8383]

So…are you saying that people should vote for Ron Paul instead of going for the win?

Well, if people voted for Ron Paul, including the independents it would be a win.

What it boils down to is that it would take a major movement, bigger than the one in the midterms to change Washington. Everyone writes Ron Paul off because they want the win, well if everyone could get together and put Paul in the White House…

You’ve just changed the game baby.

You put more Republicans like Rubio, Rand, Ryan and so on in Congress and you’ve just changed the face of politics. Everyone want’s to complain about it, nobody wants to do anything about it.

Of course, I’m not talking about those of us who are talking politics on a daily basis.

 

[mlund]

Then vote for Santorum in the primary. He doesn’t have Dr. Paul’s foreign policy baggage and is anything but a squish on Life and Marriage issues. He’s not as bombastic as the esteemed doctor when it comes to talking about taking down the bureaucratic leviathan but his voting record and campaign certainly speaks to his purpose of downsizing the Federal Government, stopping its overreach, and restoring fiscal sanity.

• conservative on all 3 legs of the stool
• a voting record to prove it
• willing to fight the Left
• practicing catholic (Order of the Knights of Malta for goodness sake!)

When your alternatives are all some combination of not electable, not experienced, or not conservative what excuses do we have left? He’s comes across as all too serious when it comes to serious issues that will shape the world our children grow up in? He’s not an entertaining bomb-thrower ripping into his fellow nominees to the delight of the Left? He lacks a compelling media narrative?

Seriously. If we’re going to have to get serious and compromise on an “electable” candidate then what other options are on the table?

• Marty Lund

 

[_Abyssinia]

Republican debate tonight on Fox news.

**Rudy Giuliani: Newt Gingrich like Ronald Reagan, best connects to “Reagan Democrats” **[VIDEO]

“Well, I believe [Gingrich is the most electable Republican] for a couple of reasons,” Giuliani said. “I’m not sure he is. I think you look at these polls, Romney is ahead in most of them — ahead of where Newt is by three or four points. I kind of go back to 1980. And I remember the Carter White House just dying for Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was the dumb actor. Ronald Reagan said incendiary things. Ronald Reagan was like Newt — gosh, you never know what he was going to say and the whole world would go crazy. The New York Times would write editorials. There was [George H.W.] Bush — greatest resume of anyone that ran for president, solid citizen, right on the mark. They got Reagan and they got trounced. And it may be that Newt is appealing to something that Mitt isn’t appealing to. There’s something wrong when you’ve been running as long as Mitt has and you’re at 25 percent and you don’t go much above and don’t go much below — 75 percent of the other Republicans are telling you something about him.”

Read more: dailycaller.com/2011/12/15/giuliani-gingrich-most-electable-best-connects-to-reagan-democrats-video/#ixzz1geQdTHL0

 

[bbarrick8383]

Then vote for Santorum in the primary. He doesn’t have Dr. Paul’s foreign policy baggage and is anything but a squish on Life and Marriage issues. He’s not as bombastic as the esteemed doctor when it comes to talking about taking down the bureaucratic leviathan but his voting record and campaign certainly speaks to his purpose of downsizing the Federal Government, stopping its overreach, and restoring fiscal sanity.

• conservative on all 3 legs of the stool
• a voting record to prove it
• willing to fight the Left
• practicing catholic (Order of the Knights of Malta for goodness sake!)

When your alternatives are all some combination of not electable, not experienced, or not conservative what excuses do we have left? He’s comes across as all too serious when it comes to serious issues that will shape the world our children grow up in? He’s not an entertaining bomb-thrower ripping into his fellow nominees to the delight of the Left? He lacks a compelling media narrative?

Seriously. If we’re going to have to get serious and compromise on an “electable” candidate then what other options are on the table?

• Marty Lund

The only problem I have is, I don’t believe Ron Paul’s foreign policy is “baggage”. I think it’s part of the changes we need to make in how we operate as a country. Let’s pull back and focus on our economy instead of others countries problems. There is no need in spending billions on securing other peoples borders when we can not even secure our own.