December Republican Primary Poll

[Scott_Lafrance]

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

I agree that we should be good stewards of the Earth, since it is a gift from God that we should care for. I am not interested in turning my rights over to some globalist cabal so they can tell me that my breathing is killing the planet.

 

[SwissGuard25]

I agree that we should be good stewards of the Earth, since it is a gift from God that we should care for. I am not interested in turning my rights over to some globalist cabal so they can tell me that my breathing is killing the planet.

Not really breathing just Cutting down trees causing less Trees to breath in Carbon Dioxide and then Breath out and gives us Oxygen and then since there is nothing to get rid of the Carbon Dioxide the Carbon Dioxide levels will increase an it will cause a green house effect, such as Venus has, causing a rise in temperature.

Complicated System

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Not really breathing just Cutting down trees causing less Trees to breath in Carbon Dioxide and then Breath out and gives us Oxygen and then since there is nothing to get rid of the Carbon Dioxide the Carbon Dioxide levels will increase an it will cause a green house effect, such as Venus has, causing a rise in temperature.

Complicated System

Algae exchanges more CO2 for O2 than all the trees combined. (Not for the wholesales chopping down of trees, BTW)

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

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.

Heard of the Paul Plan to Restore America?

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.

He’s taking his hands off of the issue because he doesn’t believe it’s the role of government to decide that. However, personally, he is against both of these.

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.

Our occupation there is killing people everyday. Do you sit well with that?

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

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.

We can pull out so we can stop contributing to the spread of that ideology and then because we save so much money by bringing the troops home we can better build up our defenses.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Algae exchanges more CO2 for O2 than all the trees combined. (Not for the wholesales chopping down of trees, BTW)

Then we should stop the Algae!

 

[SwissGuard25]

We can pull out so we can stop contributing to the spread of that ideology and then because we save so much money by bringing the troops home we can better build up our defenses.

 

[LisaA]

Really wish people would learn the difference in isolation and non intervention.

Actually I know but still maintain Paul wants an isolationist, hands off approach. Who cares if the Iranians get nukes right? I mean they are a soverign country and can do as they wish correct? In this case I"m all for intervening. I think the world would a safer place were nuts like NoKo Kim and Pakistan were not nuclear powers. So if preventing Iran or other lunatic places from getting nukes is ‘interventionist’ count me in.

But I absolutely agree that some of our ‘foreign ventures’ have been ill advised. I also don’t see the point of having troops in certain countries. If those countries would like to PAY us to protect them fine. But offering a free defense so they can spend money on their bloated social programs is another story. I’m in full screaming agreement that many of the European installments are unnecessary for our security but think having troops on the 45th parallel is IMO insurance.

So it’s not as cut and dried as Paul tries to make it. It’s not a matter of pulling out every troop from everywhere and ignoring Iran or other budding nuclear states. Nor is it a matter that we will take on being the world’s policeman. Each situation, each country needs to be viewed as a separate issue.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

Do you know why Osama bin Laden attacked us?

Audit the Fed

They in theory support Obamacare.

Bin Laden attacked us because he thought he could get away with it. He didn’t

Talking about auditing the Fed for the last two decades is not the same is getting legislation through Congress. Tell me what he’s DONE, not what he talks about doing. How long has he been in Washington? Not very effective is he?

No, they don’t support Obamacare which consists of 2700 pages far exceeding the scope of an individual mandate. Further while they may have previously expressed a positive opinion of the mandate, both have subsequently reversed that mind set. Tell me you have never changed your mind about a political or social theory.

As to the mandate, IF you are going to have ‘universal health care’ (a baloney term since it means INSURANCE not care) you must have a mandate, else the majority of people will continue to play roulette and not buy insurance until they need it. So IF you think some kind of top down plan is necessary, it is also necessary that EVERYONE participate. So the theory of the mandate is understandable, but the idea that some kind of government healthcare for all is the right approach, is a non-starter.

Lisa

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Actually I know but still maintain Paul wants an isolationist, hands off approach. Who cares if the Iranians get nukes right? I mean they are a soverign country and can do as they wish correct? In this case I"m all for intervening. I think the world would a safer place were nuts like NoKo Kim and Pakistan were not nuclear powers. So if preventing Iran or other lunatic places from getting nukes is ‘interventionist’ count me in.

Yet the only country that has ever used one has the most. Besides, a nuclear weapon would be the best defense that Iran could have against all of its nuclear capable neighbors.

But I absolutely agree that some of our ‘foreign ventures’ have been ill advised. I also don’t see the point of having troops in certain countries. If those countries would like to PAY us to protect them fine. But offering a free defense so they can spend money on their bloated social programs is another story. I’m in full screaming agreement that many of the European installments are unnecessary for our security but think having troops on the 45th parallel is IMO insurance.

So it’s not as cut and dried as Paul tries to make it. It’s not a matter of pulling out every troop from everywhere and ignoring Iran or other budding nuclear states. Nor is it a matter that we will take on being the world’s policeman. Each situation, each country needs to be viewed as a separate issue.

Lisa

In all situations it contributes to the disdain of the US.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yup.

And, as has been pointed out ad infinitem, this would be the first time in the history of the United States that the federal government forced its citizens to buy something.

If SCOTUS, God forbid, finds this constitutional, it’s the end of a free America. There will be absolutely no restriction on the federal govenment to stop it from mandating us to buy anything it chooses.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Actually I know but still maintain Paul wants an isolationist, hands off approach. Who cares if the Iranians get nukes right? I mean they are a soverign country and can do as they wish correct? In this case I"m all for intervening. I think the world would a safer place were nuts like NoKo Kim and Pakistan were not nuclear powers. So if preventing Iran or other lunatic places from getting nukes is ‘interventionist’ count me in.

But I absolutely agree that some of our ‘foreign ventures’ have been ill advised. I also don’t see the point of having troops in certain countries. If those countries would like to PAY us to protect them fine. But offering a free defense so they can spend money on their bloated social programs is another story. I’m in full screaming agreement that many of the European installments are unnecessary for our security but think having troops on the 45th parallel is IMO insurance.

So it’s not as cut and dried as Paul tries to make it. It’s not a matter of pulling out every troop from everywhere and ignoring Iran or other budding nuclear states. Nor is it a matter that we will take on being the world’s policeman. Each situation, each country needs to be viewed as a separate issue.

Lisa

Ron Paul has very clearly stated that as President he would act in whatever manner Congress authorized him to act. He would not pre-emptively strike someone through the war powers act, which he considers unConstitutional. If we aren’t going to require our politicians to abide by their oath and defend the Constitution, why bother having one? Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution we like makes us just as bad as liberals who conflate and deflate the meaning of certain parts of the Constitution as it suits their purpose.

I mean really. Conservatives make the case (rightly so) that Congress is grossly misinterpreting the “interstate commerce clause” with regards to the individual mandate in Obamacare. What is the difference between that and dropping bombs on a foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Ron Paul has very clearly stated that as President he would act in whatever manner Congress authorized him to act. He would not pre-emptively strike someone through the war powers act, which he considers unConstitutional. If we aren’t going to require our politicians to abide by their oath and defend the Constitution, why bother having one? Picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution we like makes us just as bad as liberals who conflate and deflate the meaning of certain parts of the Constitution as it suits their purpose.

I mean really. Conservatives make the case (rightly so) that Congress is grossly misinterpreting the “interstate commerce clause” with regards to the individual mandate in Obamacare. What is the difference between that and dropping bombs on a foreign nation without a declaration of war by Congress?

Bush had that declaration, or am I mistaken?

 

[LisaA]

Yet the only country that has ever used one has the most. Besides, a nuclear weapon would be the best defense that Iran could have against all of its nuclear capable neighbors.

In all situations it contributes to the disdain of the US.

Your point is completely lost on me. So you must agree that Iran is perfectly in its rights to get a nuke?

I frankly do not care about disdain. I care about respect and fear. As long as they respect us they are far less likely to cause us problems. It is weakness, real or perceived, that draws out the aggressors. Read Victor Davis Hansen.

Lisa

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Bin Laden attacked us because he thought he could get away with it. He didn’t

This is dodging the issue. Why did he want to attack the US?

Talking about auditing the Fed for the last two decades is not the same is getting legislation through Congress. Tell me what he’s DONE, not what he talks about doing. How long has he been in Washington? Not very effective is he?

I told you: Audit the Fed. That is real legislation that he got passed.

No, they don’t support Obamacare which consists of 2700 pages far exceeding the scope of an individual mandate. Further while they may have previously expressed a positive opinion of the mandate, both have subsequently reversed that mind set. Tell me you have never changed your mind about a political or social theory.

Ask Romney to say that what he did in Massachusetts was a mistake. He won’t do it. For Gingrich, add on support of the bailouts.

As to the mandate, IF you are going to have ‘universal health care’ (a baloney term since it means INSURANCE not care) you must have a mandate, else the majority of people will continue to play roulette and not buy insurance until they need it. So IF you think some kind of top down plan is necessary, it is also necessary that EVERYONE participate. So the theory of the mandate is understandable, but the idea that some kind of government healthcare for all is the right approach, is a non-starter.

Lisa

Paul is the only one who supports a free market in health care, and he would know most about that, being a doctor and all.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Your point is completely lost on me. So you must agree that Iran is perfectly in its rights to get a nuke?

It is. And putting sanctions on them only makes them more of an enemy. It does not make them more peaceful with us.

I frankly do not care about disdain. I care about respect and fear. As long as they respect us they are far less likely to cause us problems. It is weakness, real or perceived, that draws out the aggressors. Read Victor Davis Hansen.

Lisa

Apparently that’s not true since even though we had bases in the Middle East we had terrorists attack us.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Yup.

And, as has been pointed out ad infinitem, this would be the first time in the history of the United States that the federal government forced its citizens to buy something.

If SCOTUS, God forbid, finds this constitutional, it’s the end of a free America. There will be absolutely no restriction on the federal govenment to stop it from mandating us to buy anything it chooses.

We know where Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are going to fall on this.

We know where Ginsberg, Sotomeyor, and Kagan (although she should recuse herself).

Not sure where Breyer and Kennedy will fall, although I think that Kennedy may vote with the conservatives.

Either way, it is going to be a 5-4 decision and roughly half of America is going to be rather upset about it.

 

[LisaA]

This is dodging the issue. Why did he want to attack the US?

I told you: Audit the Fed. That is real legislation that he got passed.

Ask Romney to say that what he did in Massachusetts was a mistake. He won’t do it. For Gingrich, add on support of the bailouts.

Paul is the only one who supports a free market in health care, and he would know most about that, being a doctor and all.

Osama attacked us because he thought he could. He had delusions of grandeur.

Has the Fed been audited? Not that I know of. So what did he get DONE?

You’re right Romney said what was done in Mass was what they wanted and it worked for them at the state level. So you think states have no rights to do as they wish other than the special powers reserved for the feds?

How do you know Paul is the only one who supports a free market in health care? My understanding is that all of the Republican candidates support a market driven, patient oriented approach.

Lisa

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Bush had that declaration, or am I mistaken?

At a minimum, he had an authorization of force, which is far more than Obama had with regards to Libya. I think that he should have requested a declaration of war. However, the political leaders in our country have been patent cowards for 70+ years now.

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

We know where Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are going to fall on this.

We know where Ginsberg, Sotomeyor, and Kagan (although she should recuse herself).

Not sure where Breyer and Kennedy will fall, although I think that Kennedy may vote with the conservatives.

Either way, it is going to be a 5-4 decision and roughly half of America is going to be rather upset about it.

Hope it’s the other half

It would be really nice to get Kennedy (I think we will) and Breyer (I think we won’t) and Kagan recused (I think we might actually get that…she will forever be tainted, and she knows it).

6-2 would be fantastic.