Republican Primary

[Semper_Zelare]

Just voting for “whoever the Republican party nominates this time” is a recipe for defeat.

You are forgetting the Independent voting bloc which is composed of liberals AND conservatives. The conservative Independents are resistant to the “vote for whoever the Republican party nominates” fallacy and would rather write-in a genuine conservative on the general election ballot than having to vote for “whoever the Republican nominate.”

While conservative Independents are being alienated by the “inevitable” establishment Republican nominee, the liberal Independents will be voting for Obama by default thus ensuring him a second term.

If Ron Paul drops out, will you write him in?

Guess what, I kind of relate to the whole “rage against the machine” mindset. But, right now I’m very happy with Rick Santorum. He embodies the conservative movement of the Tea Party, he cares about all the big issues facing America… the deficit, etc.

Ron Paul says he’ll eliminate $1 trillion of spending in 1 year.

Rick Santorum says he’ll eliminate $5 trillion of spending in 4 years. That seems to be 250 billion more per year than what Ron Paul advocates.

At the very least, will you admit that Rick Santorum cares just as much about cutting the deficit as Ron Paul? Yes or No?

Anyways… what I was getting at, is, we tried the whole rage against the machine thing before. Ross Perot (same initials as Ron Paul btw)… he got 19% of the vote, and didn’t win a single state.
We got Bill Clinton. I don’t want that same thing to happen, causing us another 4 years of Obama. Another 4 years of Obama means America becomes greece. There will be entitlements, there will be economic collapse, and there will be fire and riots in the streets.

BTW, you can claim the Republicans can’t win independents… but right now Rick Santorum has 40% of support from Democrats and Independents in Michigan… Mitt Romney has 21%. Facts are stubborn things… don’t that just grind yo gears?

 

[iloveangels]

If Ron Paul drops out, will you write him in?

Guess what, I kind of relate to the whole “rage against the machine” mindset. But, right now I’m very happy with Rick Santorum. He embodies the conservative movement of the Tea Party, he cares about all the big issues facing America… the deficit, etc.

Ron Paul says he’ll eliminate $1 trillion of spending in 1 year.

Rick Santorum says he’ll eliminate $5 trillion of spending in 4 years. That seems to be 250 billion more per year than what Ron Paul advocates.

At the very least, will you admit that Rick Santorum cares just as much about cutting the deficit as Ron Paul? Yes or No?

Anyways… what I was getting at, is, we tried the whole rage against the machine thing before. Ross Perot (same initials as Ron Paul btw)… he got 19% of the vote, and didn’t win a single state.
We got Bill Clinton. I don’t want that same thing to happen, causing us another 4 years of Obama. Another 4 years of Obama means America becomes greece. There will be entitlements, there will be economic collapse, and there will be fire and riots in the streets.

BTW, you can claim the Republicans can’t win independents… but right now Rick Santorum has 40% of support from Democrats and Independents in Michigan… Mitt Romney has 21%. Facts are stubborn things… don’t that just grind yo gears?

If Ron Paul drops out, I will NOT write him in. I’m going to vote for the Republican candidate, whoever that is because a third party candidate can’t win, has never won. Obama needs to go.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

If Ron Paul drops out, I will NOT write him in. I’m going to vote for the Republican candidate, whoever that is because a third party candidate can’t win, has never won. Obama needs to go.

That is the only reason I will vote for the GOP candidate in this election. My dislike of Obama’s administration is greater than my dislike of party politics. Anyone the GOP puts in place will be an improvement.

BUT. To get anything significant done, the GOP needs to keep the House out of the hands of the likes of Nanny Pelosi and Maxine Waters. They need to take the Senate. And Ginsburg needs to retire and be replaced by the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito (all solid Catholics, BTW)

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

The hugely popular Teddy Roosevelt lost as a third party candidate. With all due respect to Mr Paul: he ain’t no Teddy.

A third party vote is a vote for Obama.

 

[rlg94086]

That is the only reason I will vote for the GOP candidate in this election. My dislike of Obama’s administration is greater than my dislike of party politics. Anyone the GOP puts in place will be an improvement.

BUT. To get anything significant done, the GOP needs to keep the House out of the hands of the likes of Nanny Pelosi and Maxine Waters. They need to take the Senate. And Ginsburg needs to retire and be replaced by the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito (all solid Catholics, BTW)

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

That is the only reason I will vote for the GOP candidate in this election. My dislike of Obama’s administration is greater than my dislike of party politics. Anyone the GOP puts in place will be an improvement.

Exactly. Everyone has to vote Republican and defeat Obama in a landslide. Maybe the Dems will finally get the message.

They have begun to: even they know America is now pro-life, which is why they are trying to cast the Obama Catholic healthcare powergrab as about birth control.

We are winning on abortion. God bless Father Pavone (among others).

 

[mlund]

BUT. To get anything significant done, the GOP needs to keep the House out of the hands of the likes of Nanny Pelosi and Maxine Waters.

I’d actually argue the Conservatives need to take the House out of the hands of the likes of John Boehner as well. Jeez, I’d rather see Ron Paul as Speaker of the House than another year of John Boehner.

They need to take the Senate.

They need to take the Senate in decisive fashion so the likes of Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Orrin Hatch, Lisa Murkowski, and John McCain can’t constantly threaten to undercut the party by making kissy-face with the Democrat leadership.

• Marty Lund

 

[pnewton]

The hugely popular Teddy Roosevelt lost as a third party candidate. With all due respect to Mr Paul: he ain’t no Teddy.

A third party vote is a vote for Obama.

No, it isn’'t. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. Not voting at all is not a vote for anyone.

Part of the consideration when selecting a candidate is considering how many non-Republicans can the person draw. I am not a Republican myself and will vote for the candidate with the most Catholic and moral principles, be he a Republican, Democrat, or a third party.

 

[ProVobis]

Ron Paul says he’ll eliminate $1 trillion of spending in 1 year.

He’s already introduced a bill which will cancel at least $1.6 trillion in debt with simple accounting maneuvers. (Bernanke, of course, is furious.)

 

[ProVobis]

And Ginsburg needs to retire and be replaced by the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito (all solid Catholics, BTW)

You did know the makeup of the SC currently has six Catholics, with Scalia and Thomas regularly attending the Latin Mass, didn’t you? (Actually Santorum also attends the Latin Mass.)

Just saying.

 

[pnewton]

He’s already introduced a bill which will cancel at least $1.6 trillion in debt with simple accounting maneuvers. (Bernanke, of course, is furious.)

This is why he is out of step with Republicans, who preach conservatism but practice deficit spending. The Republican Party is every bit as much the party of big governtment spending as are the Democrats. Yet in America, that is what gets elected. This is not surprising since so few Americans work on a balanced budget. We can look to Greece and see our future.

 

[rlg94086]

No, it isn’'t. A vote for Obama is a vote for Obama. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. Not voting at all is not a vote for anyone.

Part of the consideration when selecting a candidate is considering how many non-Republicans can the person draw. I am not a Republican myself and will vote for the candidate with the most Catholic and moral principles, be he a Republican, Democrat, or a third party.

You are both right. A person’s vote is, indeed, in favor of whomever they vote for. That said, one shouldn’t ignore history or math. If you are closer to one of the two major parties, then your non-vote or third party vote diminishes the major party you are closer to and improves the chances of the one you are further from. That is mathematical fact.

If you truly believe that your third party candidate will do what none other has historically done and beat out both major parties, then I completely understand. I just don’t see that happening in this election.

I don’t think Ron Paul will run third party because he understands the history and the math.

 

[pnewton]

You are both right. A person’s vote is, indeed, in favor of whomever they vote for. That said, one shouldn’t ignore history or math. If you are closer to one of the two major parties, then your non-vote or third party vote diminishes the major party you are closer to and improves the chances of the one you are further from. That is mathematical fact.

If you truly believe that your third party candidate will do what none other has historically done and beat out both major parties, then I completely understand. I just don’t see that happening in this election.

I don’t think Ron Paul will run third party because he understands the history and the math.

According to Catholic teaching, we may consider, but are not required to consider, electability. Speaking of math, yes, a third party vote does diminish the chances of the major candidate, each by half what an actual vote for the opponent would do. So even mathmateically, a vote for a third party is not a vote for Obama, but half a vote for him and half a vote for the Republican.

This is something to consider before casting one’s 0.0000007% of the presidential decision.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

According to Catholic teaching, we may consider, but are not required to consider, electability. Speaking of math, yes, a third party vote does diminish the chances of the major candidate, each by half what an actual vote for the opponent would do. So even mathmateically, a vote for a third party is not a vote for Obama, but half a vote for him and half a vote for the Republican.

This is something to consider before casting one’s 0.0000007% of the presidential decision.

Unless you live in Illinois, you only have ONE .0000007% to influence the outcome of the election. Don’t squander it.

 

[rlg94086]

According to Catholic teaching, we may consider, but are not required to consider, electability. Speaking of math, yes, a third party vote does diminish the chances of the major candidate, each by half what an actual vote for the opponent would do. So even mathmateically, a vote for a third party is not a vote for Obama, but half a vote for him and half a vote for the Republican.

This is something to consider before casting one’s 0.0000007% of the presidential decision.

I’ve never said that Catholic teaching requires you to consider electability. You are allowed to put such reasoning aside. The third party vote can’t draw 1/2 a vote from each party - that’s nonsense. It would mean that your other voting choice was to vote 1/2 for each, which is physically impossible. I stated it correctly.

If you consider Obama the worst choice, then your third party vote increases his chances unless your third party can truly beat out both parties.

 

[ProVobis]

This is why he is out of step with Republicans, who preach conservatism but practice deficit spending. The Republican Party is every bit as much the party of big governtment spending as are the Democrats. Yet in America, that is what gets elected. This is not surprising since so few Americans work on a balanced budget. We can look to Greece and see our future.

pn, I agree with you. Their bark is worse than their bite.

And if you look at the list of contributors, you’ll find Goldman Sachs, an arm of the Fed, behind a lot of R & D candidates. I for one will not be voting for any of them.

 

[ProVobis]

If you consider Obama the worst choice, then your third party vote increases his chances unless your third party can truly beat out both parties.

If the candidate had the votes to win, then it wouldn’t really be a third party, would it?

Seriously though, can you really say that George Wallace, who pulled a few electoral votes, didn’t affect the political mandate that would have gone to Nixon or Humphrey had he not run? Political experts say he drew about the same number from each major-party candidate.

 

[ishii]

Dennis Kucinich straddled on the healthcare bill; how was that consistent? Besides, he’s not running in the Republican primaries making speeches every day.

He has been pretty consistently leftist for the past ten years or more.

Ishii

 

[gnjsdad]

pn, I agree with you. Their bark is worse than their bite.

And if you look at the list of contributors, you’ll find Goldman Sachs, an arm of the Fed, behind a lot of R & D candidates. I for one will not be voting for any of them.

Neither will I.

 

[ishii]

If the poster had used that language, you would be correct, but he did not. It is better to stick to accurate representation of what people say.

Really?

Here is what Rlg wrote:

So, everyone but Ron Paul supporters are ignorant sheeple. That’s a great way to attract voters to your candidate.

And here is what the other poster said:

People reject his pro-life, anti-war, and anti-Fed message because of ignorance. How many people even know who controls the money supply or what the Church position on birth control is or where Iran is on the map? How many public school teachers even know? Yet, these things affect Americans and all they get is what the news media tells them whom to vote for.

In other words, everyone but Ron Paul supporters are ignorant sheeple. That, by the way, is similar to how the secular left thinks about religious conservatives: were ignorant sheeple who cling to our guns and bibles.

Ishii