December Republican Primary Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
smndtupidisaftr said:
Paul stands for nothing? He follows the classical liberal tradition and follows Austrian economist. He is the only one that stands for anything.

Santorum wants to expand our overseas wars, and Romney and Gingrich have both supported individual mandates. So why are any of these guys better to choose than Paul?
Click to expand...
Paul’s domestic policies are basically fine with me and I appreciate his libertarian approach to fiscal policy. OTOH I think he’s living in dreamland with his isolationist theories about dealing with other countries. When he appears to be willing to let Iran get a nuclear weapon and do nothing to stop them, in fact seeming to sympathize with their desire and need for such weapons, he scares the living daylights out of me. Do not like his foreign policy at all.

Aside from that tell me in all the years he’s been in Congress what has he done? He talks, he pontificates, he theorizes but has he led in any way? What specific legislation has he honchoed along?

That Romney and Gingrich HAVE (note past tense) supported individual mandates in the past means what?
Lisa
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Where in the Constitution does the word “democracy” exist?

The United States is a representative republic. Not a democracy.

If the United States was a democracy, we would not need 50 states. Just ONE biggie state.

And only one house of Congress, not two of them, with one based on population distribution and the other supposed to be selected by state legislators.

And we wouldn’t need three branches: legislative, executive and judicial. We would only need one.

The idea is to have multiple sources of power that compete to prevent the establishment of tyranny.

With a democracy, you end up with all sorts of “madding crowds” determining every policy. And a lot of popularity contests. And politicians appealing exclusively to the current fad … fad … For A Day. Political whiplash, with no one knowing what is going on from one day to the next, because everything changes as the election results change.

The idea is to have some semblance of smoothness and evenness.

By having multiple sources of power that compete in the marketplace of ideas, you prevent concentration of power.

Of course, since Woodrow Wilson [or earlier], the central government has been doing just that … concentrating power in the hands of an oligarchy.

Anyway, with democracy you get Juan Peron and economic chaos.
Click to expand...
If you wanna get technical okay

The point of America is to duly note the people rule not the U.S. Government.
People every U.S. Citizen has equal rights and should be represented fairly if they’re not represented fairly than how do the people have equal rights.

A Republic is a place where people elect a Representative for their voice you can still have many states and be a Democracy.
What you’re talking about is Federalism and Confederalism
 
mary_bobo said:
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want the president elected by both coasts. There are those of us who live in fly-over country who matter just as much. The founding fathers gave us a very good form of government if we have the sense to keep it. And once again, when all the recounting was done, Bush got the majority of the votes in Florida. Go back and check.
Click to expand...
First to Note:
It has nothing to do with Florida Al Gore did get the popular vote but Bush got the majority of the Electoral Votes so Bush became President.
Here is the stats of the Election:
Bush Gore
Electoral vote 271 266
Popular vote 50,456,000 50,999,897
Percentage 47.9% 48.4%
 
I want to ask people disusing this a question:

Do you guys vote Catholic or do you vote Republican?
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Paul stands for nothing? He follows the classical liberal tradition and follows Austrian economist. He is the only one that stands for anything.

Santorum wants to expand our overseas wars, and Romney and Gingrich have both supported individual mandates. So why are any of these guys better to choose than Paul?
Click to expand...
When I said he stands for nothing, I literally meant he doesn’t have plans of implementing much of anything. He doesn’t have any plans except for to abolish a lot of institutions. I am fine with that.

But he literally stands for nothing as far as social issues are concerned. Abortion: I don’t like it but its really for the states. Drugs: well, I don’ like it but it is really up to the states etc. I think there are some issues the states should handle, but when it comes to issues such as life, and when you know there are states that will vote for abortion, I think you need to take a stronger stand. That is really my biggest problem with him. My other problem is he wants to get out of all of these countries, and I agree with him, but not at the expense of allowing nations that literally want to pulverize us and our allies to get nuclear capabilities to do so.

Don’t get me wrong, I like him. But just like everyone else, he isn’t flawless.
 
SwissGuard25 said:
I want to ask people disusing this a question:

Do you guys vote Catholic or do you vote Republican?
Click to expand...
I vote issues guided by my faith and education.

At this point in time the Republican party candidates are in line with both while the Democrats have taken some completely anti-Catholic stances (abortion obviously but also same sex marriage) So it’s been a long time since I voted Democrat, but I have.

Lisa
 
LisaA said:
Rick Perry came in with huge momentum and sailed into the lead without ‘firing a shot.’ He then proceeded to perfrom abysmally in the debates. I mean it was PAINFUL to watch him. Further his bristling defense of in state tuition for illegals with the snarky “If you don’t wan’t this you don’t have a heart” was a shot through his. I remember hearing that comment and thinking ‘well you’re toast.’ It’s fine to have a disagreement and to explain that this is something supported by Texans for Texas but it’s quite another to disparage the many Americans who disagree with offering magnets for illegals.

Before Rick Perry got in and there were all these flirtations with "will he or wont he’ which ginned up support even more, I heard from a lot of Texans that he had some negatives that had been buried by a good economic performance. His inability to speak on his feet or in front of a crowd was mentioned frequently. He is apparently great one on one but is not a good public speaker. Given the opponent is Obama whose speaking ability and the kind of charisma that garnered a majority, I think many voters feared Perry would look like a country bumpkin and thus not appeal to a wide span of the electorate.

Lisa
Click to expand...
StevenFrancis and I were discussing the other Rick. Santorum. It is he who I wonder why he hasn’t had more support among the GOP conservative faithful. I know why Perry did at first.
 
SalesianSDB said:
Same here. I think if he has a strong showing in Iowa he actually has a shot at the nomination. I honestly think that if he wins the nomination he will be the next President of the United States. He has the most appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats.

Part of me wishes that Judge Napolitano is his running mate just so I can see him yell, “It’s Unconstitutional!” for every answer in a debate against Joe Biden.

Paul/Napolitano is my dream ticket!
Click to expand...
That would be an awesome ticket.
 
LisaA said:
Paul’s domestic policies are basically fine with me and I appreciate his libertarian approach to fiscal policy. OTOH I think he’s living in dreamland with his isolationist theories about dealing with other countries. When he appears to be willing to let Iran get a nuclear weapon and do nothing to stop them, in fact seeming to sympathize with their desire and need for such weapons, he scares the living daylights out of me. Do not like his foreign policy at all.
Click to expand...
Do you know why Osama bin Laden attacked us?
Aside from that tell me in all the years he’s been in Congress what has he done? He talks, he pontificates, he theorizes but has he led in any way? What specific legislation has he honchoed along?
Click to expand...
Audit the Fed
That Romney and Gingrich HAVE (note past tense) supported individual mandates in the past means what?
Lisa
Click to expand...
They in theory support Obamacare.
 
SalesianSDB said:
Same here. I think if he has a strong showing in Iowa he actually has a shot at the nomination. I honestly think that if he wins the nomination he will be the next President of the United States. He has the most appeal to independents and disaffected Democrats.

Part of me wishes that Judge Napolitano is his running mate just so I can see him yell, “It’s Unconstitutional!” for every answer in a debate against Joe Biden.

Paul/Napolitano is my dream ticket!
Click to expand...
Paul has some foreign policy points but I’m not sure his extreme libertarian views on the role the federal govt can play would appeal to enough Independents let alone even those Democrats who are disaffected. But if he wins Iowa and becomes the new anti Romney maybe we can find out.
 
smndtupidisaftr said:
Do you know why Osama bin Laden attacked us?
Click to expand...
I am sure we all know that Bin Laden attacked us because he was upset that we took over the military operation during Desert Storm and had a somewhat permanent presence in the Middel East, but we have been attacked. Because of the past administrations we have an entire region that wants to kill us and is willing to kill us regardless of where our troops or embassies are. Do we really want to just back away at all costs and hope they accept our apology? I don’t.
 
LisaA said:
Paul’s domestic policies are basically fine with me and I appreciate his libertarian approach to fiscal policy. OTOH I think he’s living in dreamland with his isolationist theories about dealing with other countries. When he appears to be willing to let Iran get a nuclear weapon and do nothing to stop them, in fact seeming to sympathize with their desire and need for such weapons, he scares the living daylights out of me. Do not like his foreign policy at all.

Aside from that tell me in all the years he’s been in Congress what has he done? He talks, he pontificates, he theorizes but has he led in any way? What specific legislation has he honchoed along?

That Romney and Gingrich HAVE (note past tense) supported individual mandates in the past means what?
Lisa
Click to expand...
Really wish people would learn the difference in isolation and non intervention.
 
I am one of those who would vote “none of the above”

All are inacceptable to me.
 
LisaA said:
I vote issues guided by my faith and education.

At this point in time the Republican party candidates are in line with both while the Democrats have taken some completely anti-Catholic stances (abortion obviously but also same sex marriage) So it’s been a long time since I voted Democrat, but I have.

Lisa
Click to expand...
That’s what I do too. I think many persons of faith do. People weigh issues and make their determination. I just recognize neither party perfectly holds to my faith. You’re a Catholic. It’s kind of like when your bishops’ conference said they do “not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote,” and warned against reducing Catholic moral concerns to “one or two matters”.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm
 
CMatt25 said:
That’s what I do too. I think many persons of faith do. I just recognize neither party perfectly holds to my faith. You’re a Catholic. It’s kind of like when your bishops’ conference said they do “not offer a voters guide, scorecard of issues or direction on how to vote,” and warned against reducing Catholic moral concerns to “one or two matters”.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1103920.htm
Click to expand...
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Raymond Burke
 
estesbob said:
“No, you can never vote for someone who favors absolutely what’s called the ‘right to choice’ of a woman to destroy human life in her womb, or the right to a procured abortion,”

Cardinal Raymond Burke
Click to expand...
Ummm, that’s the Democrat Party platform. 🤷
 
karebear92 said:
Republican, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be both, obviously.
Click to expand...
I don’t think they’re both.

They’re some stuff that Republicans say that I agree with like Pro Life and Supporting Traditional Natural Marriage.
But they’re some stuff Democrats say that I agree with.
Such as being more green to prevent Global Warming, or like President. Obama said during his inauguration speech, that we must “pick ourselves up dust ourselves off because we can’t always be waiting for some hero to come.”
 
LisaA said:
I vote issues guided by my faith and education.

At this point in time the Republican party candidates are in line with both while the Democrats have taken some completely anti-Catholic stances (abortion obviously but also same sex marriage) So it’s been a long time since I voted Democrat, but I have.

Lisa
Click to expand...
Yah I can agree (even though I don’t vote)
I do agree with Democrats that we should be more environmentally friendly to prevent Global Warming
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top