December Republican Primary Poll

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
karebear92 said:
How could we have fought Al Qaeda and had our first attempts to kill Bin Laden had we not gone into Afghanistan where he was located?
Click to expand...
Seal Team Six or the CIA. I submit that the effect would have been far more dramatic if we would have killed bin Laden without starting a war in Afganistan. It would have sent the message “We can kill any one of you, at any time, in any place.”
 
Mitt Romney tells Politico that he now foresees an epic fight with Newt Gingrich that could last through the California primary on June 5

“Romney made it clear that he would rather lose than make incendiary charges about Gingrich that could help President Barack Obama in the general election. And the former Massachusetts governor said the nomination “is not going to be decided in just a couple of contests” and “could go for months and months.””

Romney the underdog

http://conhomeusa.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f4f7f710970b01675eb21406970b-500wi

More at Andrew Sullivan. Gingrich has a 12% lead in the RCP average (32.8% to Romney’s 20.8%).

Campaign Sends Romney to the Rescue. Ann Romney - New York Times

Evangelicals for Mitt? ‘Grassroots’ Group Has Close Ties to the Romney Campaign - TIME

Gingrich hits Romney from the Left, for laying off workers - Weekly Standard

GOP hopefuls face pointed questions on gay rights as American public opinion becomes much more gay-friendly - Washington Post | NPR

Gingrich affirmed his support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage - USA Today

“The debates have held out the alluring promise of a New Newt. But beware: The Old Newt lurks.” - Rich Lowry at NRO

“Gingrich equated allowing Iran to develop a nuclear weapon with allowing a second Holocaust, Huntsman said Iran was “the transcendent threat of this decade.”” - LA Times
Gingrich in 2012 = Goldwater in 1964 - Ed Kilgore at TNR

Myths about Ron Paul

Ron Paul departs company with many libertarians: “In theory he supports free-trade agreements, but he votes against them, dismissing them as “managed trade.” He’s known for adding earmarks to spending bills he votes against, thus bringing home pork while maintaining his “Dr. No” credentials. As a result, says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute, Paul is “an imperfect messenger” for libertarians’ small-government gospel.” - Washington Post
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Show me. Prove to me that the federal government declare slavery to be illegal prior to the Emancipation Proclamation. The EP didn’t even declare slavery illegal, but rather IMMORAL. You can’t, because the Congress had passed the Corwin Amendment and Lincoln was in the process of advocating for it to be ratified. In fact, it WAS ratified by Ohio and as such is still considered a live Amendment, yet unratified.
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the 13th Amendment abolish slavery?
 
_Abyssinia said:
Myths about Ron Paul

Ron Paul departs company with many libertarians: “In theory he supports free-trade agreements, but he votes against them, dismissing them as “managed trade.” He’s known for adding earmarks to spending bills he votes against, thus bringing home pork while maintaining his “Dr. No” credentials. As a result, says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute, Paul is “an imperfect messenger” for libertarians’ small-government gospel.” - Washington Post
Click to expand...
On earmarks:

youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY&NR=1

On free trade:
Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.” He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.
Click to expand...
He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.
Click to expand...
You can make up your own mind, but when he opposes these FTA’s, he has good reason.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Seal Team Six or the CIA. I submit that the effect would have been far more dramatic if we would have killed bin Laden without starting a war in Afganistan. It would have sent the message “We can kill any one of you, at any time, in any place.”
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t that be sort of like killing the head of a Mafia family and hoping it would go away?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
After the Civil War, not before.
Click to expand...
I never said before. I said that the federal government did declare that slavery was illegal. They did that in the 13th amendment. It wasn’t a unanimous vote, which means that there were some representatives who still voted against it, yet they were not allowed slavery in their states, which means that slavery was declared illegal by the federal govt. and not the states.
 
karebear92 said:
I never said before. I said that the federal government did declare that slavery was illegal. They did that in the 13th amendment. It wasn’t a unanimous vote, which means that there were some representatives who still voted against it, yet they were not allowed slavery in their states, which means that slavery was declared illegal by the federal govt. and not the states.
Click to expand...
By a ratified Constitutional amendment, according to the process set by the Constitution. Granted, many of the Southern states ratified the amendment at gunpoint. 🤷
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
By a ratified Constitutional amendment, according to the process set by the Constitution. Granted, many of the Southern states ratified the amendment at gunpoint. 🤷
Click to expand...
Which is what I think Ron Paul should stand for rather than saying it should be a state issue. He may support that. I am not sure, but I have heard him say it should be left up to the states. I think critical issues of morality such as slavery and the murdering of babies should be pushed as a national agenda.
 
karebear92 said:
Which is what I think Ron Paul should stand for rather than saying it should be a state issue. He may support that. I am not sure, but I have heard him say it should be left up to the states. I think critical issues of morality such as slavery and the murdering of babies should be pushed as a national agenda.
Click to expand...
Maybe we can have another war over it and force states to ratify a pro-life amendment at gunpoint. 👍
 
CMatt25 said:
Why do you think that is? I’ve heard he has extensively travelled the state. His message and family life is one that I would think would appeal to the conservative voter. It puzzles me why he has not done better for instance among the Iowa GOP voters in the polls. So many others have had their moments in the sun before falling off. But Rick Santorum just never seemed to have his. 🤷
Click to expand...
I wish I knew friend. I wish I knew. All I can think of is that he’s not very brash. He doesn’t stand out much. Debate moderators rarely send a question his way, because they concern themselves always with the current top 2 or 3. Santorum has all the right things to say that this orthodox Catholic Christian wants to hear, and I think he’d be very good for this country. Fortunately, I am also happy with several others. ALL of them will work to bring freedom of conscience back to the country, and that’s my biggest issue. More than the economy. More than immigration. I want the attacks on faith to stop, and for all people of faith to be able to have the freedom to exercise their conscience in the medical and education fields.

Peace,

Steven
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Maybe we can have another war over it and force states to ratify a pro-life amendment at gunpoint. 👍
Click to expand...
Now we agree on something! We would win too, the northeast and the west would be split virtually down the middle. ← that was a truthful joke. I don’t want a civil war, but I do hate abortion.

Now, I am not saying we should have a civil war, but when you look at the number of babies killed compared to the number of soldiers that would be killed in a war, war actually looks better on paper.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading in The Revolution: A Manifesto that Paul would turn abortion to the states, have activists and pro-life groups work at the state level which would be easier than the national level. Then afterwards go for a Constitutional amendment. The way he sees it, giving it back to the states will save some lives in the meantime and then work on a Constitutional amendment.

This is an ad he produced on life. Personally, I think it’s one of the best ads any candidate had produced so far.
youtube.com/watch?v=MkAsLPrnJGc

I also suggest you pick up his book Liberty Defined and read the chapter on abortion.
 
SalesianSDB said:
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember reading in The Revolution: A Manifesto that Paul would turn abortion to the states, have activists and pro-life groups work at the state level which would be easier than the national level. Then afterwards go for a Constitutional amendment. The way he sees it, giving it back to the states will save some lives in the meantime and then work on a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty certain this is the approach all the candidates take. “Turning abortion back to the states” requires an overturn of Roe v Wade. It is not something a president can do, but they can put constructionist judges on the SCOTUS.
 
_Abyssinia said:
Myths about Ron Paul

Ron Paul departs company with many libertarians: "In theory he supports free-trade agreements, but he votes against them, dismissing them as “managed trade.”
Click to expand...
Because those aren’t really free trade. NAFTA is not free trade. It’s filled with tarriffs and all kinds of rules. All you need for free trade is a declaration of free trade. You don’t need a 20,000 page document to secure free trade.
He’s known for adding earmarks to spending bills he votes against, thus bringing home pork while maintaining his “Dr. No” credentials. As a result, says David Boaz of the libertarian Cato Institute, Paul is “an imperfect messenger” for libertarians’ small-government gospel." - Washington Post
Click to expand...
Because if money is going to be spent, you might as well try to get some back for your own district.
 
rlg94086 said:
I’m pretty certain this is the approach all the candidates take. “Turning abortion back to the states” requires an overturn of Roe v Wade. It is not something a president can do, but they can put constructionist judges on the SCOTUS.
Click to expand...
I think most candidates are opposed to giving it to the states and just want to see a Constitutional amendment.

Actually, Congress has the Constitutional authority to strip the Supreme Court from hearing cases on abortion and overturning Roe v Wade. This approach would take to the states until a Constitutional amendment is passed.
Dr. Paul proposed such a bill to do this: We the People Act
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.958:

He also did this with the Sanctity of Life Act:
govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2533
 
karebear92 said:
Wouldn’t that be sort of like killing the head of a Mafia family and hoping it would go away?
Click to expand...
At least then you would be attacking the organization and not indirect agents. Invading Afghanistan is like destroying the building that the mafia meets up in. Sure, it annoys them, but you know that they’re just going to find another place to meet (aka Pakistan). Invading Iraq is like invading Iraq. It is completely irrelevant to what you were trying to do, which is break up the mafia.
 
SalesianSDB said:
I think most candidates are opposed to giving it to the states and just want to see a Constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Really? Name a candidate who is opposed to overturning Roe v Wade…other than Huntsman (I don’t know where he stands).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top