Republican Primaries

  • Thread starter Thread starter Scott_Lafrance
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Scott_Lafrance

Guest
SInce the “Who will you vote for in 2012” thread has closed, its pretty obvious that Democrats are going to vote for Obama (with a few notable exceptions). However, since the GOP field is still up for grabs, and I already did a poll over Obama v. “Yet Unnamed GOP person”, I am making this all about the GOP. Putting in the known contenders and a few that people wish were running.

Update: Well, I put only people who have officially declared. There are plenty of “Still yet undecided” and a couple of officially declared “Who is that?” that aren’t listed in the poll.

Roy Moore
Tom Miller
Rick Perry
Buddy Roemer
Vern Wuensche
John Bolton
Scott Brown
Rudy Guiliani
Lindsey Graham
Sarah Palin
Paul Ryan
Joe Scarborough
Allen West

There are a bunch that have declined to run, so I’m zeroing this out.
 
While I was tempted to put Jimmy McMillan, I am going to vote for Ron Paul.

From a series of fliers from the 2008 campaign:
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Click to expand...
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Click to expand...
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Click to expand...
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform.
Ron votes to eliminate tax funded abortions and to overturn Roe v Wade.
Ron votes to protect religious freedom.
Click to expand...
I can respect his voting record.

The only candidate to realize that the State is not God.
 
What, no takers for Jimmy “The Rent is Too Damn High” McMillan. Originally I thought it was a joke until I saw that he officially declared as a GOP candidate. 😃
 
I came on this forum here to see who everyone was leaning towards and to my discomfort I see that Ron Paul is ahead .My only question is why? Is it because of his morals ? because I can assure you that there are plenty of candidates sharing the same morals as him . WE dont need to vote for him . This country made a big mistake by voting in Obama and one of the reasons why was because we did not have a good enough candidate . Ron Paul will not do the job . Michelle would give Obama a run for his money . Her christian morals line up and she is young . Voters these days dont like older . Ron should do us all a great service and drop out . Newt would have been great but his ship seems to have sailed plus the baggage he carries with him .Lets just a all think before hitting the booth . We pick another much older man then we mine as well prepare for another 4 years of Obama . Sorry guys but its the truth .
 
I voted for Ron Paul in 1988 and will continue to vote every chance I get. That said, Michelle Bachmann seems to espouse a lot of his ideas (anti-Fed, strong dollar, true pro-life, states rights, etc.), she is intelligent, attractive, and speaks clear English. Her only drawback is that her name still isn’t that widely known.
 
Someone who is in favor of legalizing heroin is not going to be the Republican nominee. So face it, Ron Paul isn’t going to get the nod.
 
gilliam said:
Someone who is in favor of legalizing heroin is not going to be the Republican nominee. So face it, Ron Paul isn’t going to get the nod.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So the question then becomes, given that reality, who can the Ron Paul brigades support? Some say that they’ll support whoever Ron Paul ends up endorsing once the primaries are over. But which among the declared Republican candidates are palatable to the Ron Paul supporters, and why?

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Agreed. So the question then becomes, given that reality, who can the Ron Paul brigades support? Some say that they’ll support whoever Ron Paul ends up endorsing once the primaries are over. But which among the declared Republican candidates are palatable to the Ron Paul supporters, and why?

Ishii
Click to expand...
Sadly, none of them. As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I see no one else who can bring the full plate to the table. None of them recognize that the issues this country faces are due to the perpetual warfare/welfare state. They all recognize one as a problem but never the other.

@gilliam-the issue is not that he’d legalize heroin, he recognizes that the Constitution leaves that issue to the states. He would get rid of federal drug laws, and let the states handle the issue themselves. I will admit he sometimes doesn’t convey that as clearly as he should. I would love to hear him attack it from the economic view; if states began to decriminalize and/or regulate it, the market would fall out and there’d be a whole bunch of unemployed drug dealers. That is the easiest sell on this issue in my view.
 
gilliam said:
Someone who is in favor of legalizing heroin is not going to be the Republican nominee. So face it, Ron Paul isn’t going to get the nod.
Click to expand...
Too bad. I guess Ron Paul is the only candidate willing to admit the truth. The war on drugs has been lost for many years. Ron Paul would get my vote, perhaps, maybe, if I decide not to vote for the Libertarian Candidate. I am a registered member of the Libertarian Party, BTW.🤷
 
buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-voice-in-the-desert-146

Pat Buchanan’s The Voice in the Desert
Like a first love, the Goldwater campaign was, for thousands of men and women now well into middle age, an experience that will never recede from memory, one on which we look back with pride and fond remembrance. We were there on St. Crispin’s Day. I have never met an old “Goldwaterite” who thought that perhaps we should have gone with Rockefeller, Scranton, or Lodge. Because the cause appeared hopeless, because the crew-cut militants of the Goldwater movement were relentlessly demonized as racist and reactionary, there were few trimmers and time-servers in the all volunteer Goldwater army. In those days, at least, the phrase “conservative opportunist” was a contradiction in terms.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
Looking back, those of us who believed in Barry Goldwater have nothing to regret, and much to be proud of. We did indeed lose in a cause that would one day triumph. “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive/But to be young was very heaven!” Wordsworth wrote of an earlier revolution; it was also true of ours.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting how history repeats itself.

The jeering of, “You can’t win, you cooks! So don’t even try, you reactionary neo-Confederate racists! Sacrifice your principles and vote for my guy.”

The Old Right Republicans in the tradition of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater have no reason to be ashamed. We have no reason to be humiliated even though our faces might end up squarely planted in the dirt.

We did what was right. We’re sorry political expediency and principle compromise didn’t factor into our voting.

I pray for Ron Paul’s success.
 
kh79 said:
Sadly, none of them. As a Ron Paul supporter myself, I see no one else who can bring the full plate to the table. None of them recognize that the issues this country faces are due to the perpetual warfare/welfare state. They all recognize one as a problem but never the other.
.
Click to expand...
I can understand your frustration. And I admire Ron Paul for standing up for his beliefs all these years. But, just to throw this out: is it fair to compare Ron Paul with former presidents who had to deal with the political reality of their opposition? I mean, Reagan ran on reducing the size of government and ran smack into the political reality of Tip O’neill. Given that Ron Paul has never had to govern in a situation in which he had to compromise and engage in the political give and take that all presidents and governors have to do, is it fair to say that we don’t know how effective a Ron Paul type candidate would be if somehow he won the election? He might bring the full plate to the table, but after the inevitable negotiating with the opposition, what would be left on his plate? I think its a fair question to pose. Ron Paul (and any other 3rd party “full plate” true-believer candidate) has never had to deal with an real opposition and deliver on his promises as a chief executive. He can sit safely and comfortably where he is and say what he wants knowing that he will never have to deliver on his rhetoric.

Ishii
 
ExLibris said:
buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-voice-in-the-desert-146

Pat Buchanan’s The Voice in the Desert

It’s interesting how history repeats itself.

The jeering of, “You can’t win, you cooks! So don’t even try, you reactionary neo-Confederate racists! Sacrifice your principles and vote for my guy.”

The Old Right Republicans in the tradition of Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater have no reason to be ashamed. We have no reason to be humiliated even though our faces might end up squarely planted in the dirt.

We did what was right. We’re sorry political expediency and principle compromise didn’t factor into our voting.

I pray for Ron Paul’s success.
Click to expand...
Goldwater’s nomination paved the way for Reagan’s later success. To compare Ron Paul and his situation with Goldwater in 1964 is a bit of a stretch. You may vote for Ron Paul and he may get 8% in the election. So what? Will that lead to a triumphant 9% in 2016? Will Ron Paul run as an 81 year old then too?

Ishii
 
@gilliam:

I don’t know what Pat Buchanan’s loss has to do with anything. Sorry, if I’m misunderstanding.

@ishii

There’s no way Ron Paul would run again. I pray for his success spreading his message and bringing his issues to the forefront of Republican conscience.

A Ronald Reagan down the road situation is my hope.
 
ExLibris said:
@gilliam:

I don’t know what Pat Buchanan’s loss has to do with anything. Sorry, if I’m misunderstanding.

@ishii

There’s no way Ron Paul would run again. I pray for his success spreading his message and bringing his issues to the forefront of Republican conscience.

A Ronald Reagan down the road situation is my hope.
Click to expand...
I don’t think there will be another Ronald Reagan again. He was one of a kind, and he came at the right time. We do need a candidate who is not afraid to tell it like it is (like Reagan did) and who can communicate effectively to all different kinds of folks from different backgrounds. I do like some of the straight talk coming from Pawlenty - he atleast has a plan to deal with the fiscal situation we’re in. I don’t know how he is on foreign policy though.

Ishii
 
ExLibris said:
A Ronald Reagan down the road situation is my hope.
Click to expand...
I think what you see is what you are going to get for this year. Perry may come in as might Palin (but I doubt she will) then the field will be pretty much settled.
 
gilliam said:
I think what you see is what you are going to get for this year. Perry may come in as might Palin (but I doubt she will) then the field will be pretty much settled.
Click to expand...
I was talking about a decade down the road.

Perry or Gingrich. They both at least talk the talk, so I can see myself begrudgingly voting for them.

No Pawlenty, Romney, or Bachmann.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top