Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter ringil
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kubark said:
Of course. I am going to be voting FOR a geniune conservative rather than AGAINST the Democrat.

What do you expect me to do, vote for the status-quo Republican candidate simply to defeat the Democrat? That kind of thinking got us into this mess. That kind of voting is insane in that it produces the same status-quo, big government frauds while expecting different, better results each time. That is the “save us from the monster” fallacy of which Chuck Baldwin wrote in 2007 that,

"I say again, it is time for ‘pro-life’ Republicans to put up or shut up!

Beyond that, it is time for Christian conservatives to stop being so gullible. We need to start looking beyond eloquent rhetoric and campaign clichés. We need to begin demanding results.

Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.

‘Save us from the monster,’ seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The ‘monster’ is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.

Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric."
Click to expand...
Regardless of WHO wins the GOP nomination, whether it is Romney, Paul, Santorum or Gingrich, they will need the support of conservatives. Ron Paul can’t win alone.

If every other candidate’s backers uses the same “If Santorum doesn’t get the nomination, I’m taking my ball and going home” approach where does that leave us?

With 4 more years of Obama.

If Paul wins the nomination, he can’t win without the support of Santorum and Romney supporters, and vice versa.

I see more than “nothing” done. I see an honest attempt to defund planned parenthood. I see court nominees like Alito and Roberts. I see a PBA ban.

I also see hope in the House regarding spending, and the 800 lb gorilla known as our Medicare and Social Security future.

It simply boils down to this: Do I want to see more Kagans and Sotomayors on the court, or more Alitos and Roberts’?

No candidate is an island, and will need support from voters who didn’t list that candidate as the first choice. See Bismark’s realpolitik
 
rlg94086 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not impossible. It is math, and rather basic math. A family can also not have a .3 child, even if the average children per household is 2.3. A sport’s team may trail by half a game, though no one plays half games. Then there is Schrödinger’s cat…
 
rlg94086 said:
There are elitists at all points of the political spectrum - left, right and center. They feel their’s is the enlightened understanding, and everyone else is ignorant.
Click to expand...
I agree but for the record you responded to someone else’s post, incorrectly ascribed to me.
 
pnewton said:
It is not impossible. It is math, and rather basic math. A family can also not have a .3 child, even if the average children per household is 2.3. A sport’s team may trail by half a game, though no one plays half games. Then there is Schrödinger’s cat…
Click to expand...
You’re applying simple math incorrectly to a complex total, and the ascribing it to your individual vote. Your vote will only draw from one source, and the likelihood of protest votes drawing equally from both parties is low.

That said, I’m not going to argue further with you about. You are free to cast your vote in whatever illogical manner you prefer. 🙂
 
rlg94086 said:
Ron Paul isn’t George Wallace.
Click to expand...
No, and he’s not Ross Perot either but the point is that your previous argument falls apart if it can be shown a third or fourth or fifth party vote can have the potential of drawing votes from both major parties almost equally. You will probably disagree with me but I tend to think Ron Paul has and will attract both Republican and Democrat anti-war and anti-Fed and pro-life people.
 
ishii said:
Really?

Here is what Rlg wrote:

And here is what the other poster said:
Click to expand...
Words mean things, they aren’t just there for looks. Words also can contain emotional content. Since the accusation made was that the the original words were not conducive to persuasion, I think it important to actual stick to the original words and not ramp up the emotional content into the ozone with the offensive word “sheeple”. I always question whether anyone has a valid point if they feel they must exaggerate and modify to get their point across. Politicians do this and we call it mud-slinging. The news does it and we call it bias. I have no idea why it happens in what is supposed to be a charitable discussion. I do not think I am wrong for preferring accuracy over emotional exaggeration. Yet for this, I am told I am “full of myself”.

FYI, does anyone see a logical contradiction with someone who says that saying people vote out of ignorance is wrong but then says, “You are free to cast your vote in whatever illogical manner you prefer?”
 
scipio337 said:
Regardless of WHO wins the GOP nomination, whether it is Romney, Paul, Santorum or Gingrich, they will need the support of conservatives. Ron Paul can’t win alone.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, but it is still possible that I will not vote for one of those. There is a point at which personal moral direction takes precedence over party politics. As I am no longer contribute as a Republican, I do not feel bound by the party’s choice, if it is too immoral for me to support. However, I will support 2, maybe 3 of the four if they win.
 
pnewton said:
Words mean things, they aren’t just there for looks. Words also can contain emotional content. Since the accusation made was that the the original words were not conducive to persuasion, I think it important to actual stick to the original words and not ramp up the emotional content into the ozone with the offensive word “sheeple”. I always question whether anyone has a valid point if they feel they must exaggerate and modify to get their point across. Politicians do this and we call it mud-slinging. The news does it and we call it bias. I have no idea why it happens in what is supposed to be a charitable discussion. I do not think I am wrong for preferring accuracy over emotional exaggeration. Yet for this, I am told I am “full of myself”.

FYI, does anyone see a logical contradiction with someone who says that saying people vote out of ignorance is wrong but then says, “You are free to cast your vote in whatever illogical manner you prefer?”
Click to expand...
“Sheeple.”

I think I heard that phrase once while listening to some warmongering neoconservative nutcase on AM talk radio.
 
pnewton said:
I understand what you are saying, but it is still possible that I will not vote for one of those. There is a point at which personal moral direction takes precedence over party politics. As I am no longer contribute as a Republican, I do not feel bound by the party’s choice, if it is too immoral for me to support. However, I will support 2, maybe 3 of the four if they win.
Click to expand...
That’s your right, but you should understand that if Paul wins the nomination, he CAN’T win the election if people who support other candidates have the same view as you.
 
scipio337 said:
That’s your right, but you should understand that if Paul wins the nomination, he CAN’T win the election if people who support other candidates have the same view as you.
Click to expand...
I would not expect any Catholic here to vote for any candidate I they do not think it a moral choice, regardless of party. I think we need to remember that each candidate will draw from the pool of independent voters, depending on a multitude of factors. It is unrealistic to expect independent voters to be willing to vote for any Republican. That is something that has to be weighed in considering how to cast a vore.
 
pnewton said:
I would not expect any Catholic here to vote for any candidate I they do not think it a moral choice, regardless of party. I think we need to remember that each candidate will draw from the pool of independent voters, depending on a multitude of factors. It is unrealistic to expect independent voters to be willing to vote for any Republican. That is something that has to be weighed in considering how to cast a vore.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what evidence you have that NO independent voters will be voting for the GOP.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top