Republican Primary

  • Thread starter Thread starter rlg94086
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bellasbane said:
That’s a Faustian bargain if you ask me. People should vote based on their principles.

If your principles are so far out of the mainstream that the candidate who best represents you would never will an election, then perhaps you should reexamine your principles and decide whether the word “radical” accurately applies to you.

Then you need to decide if your radicalism is worth the fight, even if it means loosing some battles along the way. The truth of the matter is that none of the Republican candidates will win against Obama in 2012. Ron Paul and Santorum are too “radical”. Romney can’t even impress his own base - why would an independent voter in the general election vote for him? Gingrich will never overcome his unfavorable ratings - people don’t forget that easily. A “brokered” convention would leave the “new” GOP candidate only 2 or 3 months to campaign. That’s just not enough time.

So if you’re going to loose - at least loose with integrity. That’s what I say to any voter. Vote for the candidate who best represents your principles and hope that in doing so you will make a statement the rest of the nation will at least pay attention to. I think that has been Ron Paul’s position since the very beginning - and look at the progress he’s made even though he always looses. He takes the long view, keeps at it and makes progress. I respect him for that.
Click to expand...
I disagree with your premise that Obama is unbeatable. He is beatable, if enough people abandon the fatalistic premise that you take. You don’t understand the nature of the evil of Obama’s policies and agenda. If you don’t vote for the GOP candidate and Obama wins do you have any idea what Obama has planned for us? If Sebilius and Obama deliberately postponed actions on HHS mandate until after the election and mislead us about their intentions, and if they want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortificients as part of health coverage do you think that abortion services are far behind? If people follow your advice and Obama wins, and Obama’s war on the Catholic church continues, and Catholic churches are forced to provide abortion coverage, will it make you* feel *better that you “lost with integrity”?

We have a choice this November: to actively oppose evil or to do nothing. I am for actively opposing it.

Ishii
 
bellasbane said:
Vote for the candidate who best represents your principles…
Click to expand...
The candidate who best represents your own principles is, well, you. Everyone else is a compromise. It’s just a matter of deciding what your priorities are and whether you are willing to make a futile protest vote to make a larger point.

And, in that context, it’s hard to imagine the Republicans nominating anyone who would be worse than Obama. Republicans may disagree on who should replace Obama and who has the best chance of beating Obama. But, end the end, the question before voters will be four more years of the same or not?
 
bellasbane said:
That’s a Faustian bargain if you ask me. People should vote based on their principles.

If your principles are so far out of the mainstream that the candidate who best represents you would never will an election, then perhaps you should reexamine your principles and decide whether the word “radical” accurately applies to you.

Then you need to decide if your radicalism is worth the fight, even if it means loosing some battles along the way. The truth of the matter is that none of the Republican candidates will win against Obama in 2012. Ron Paul and Santorum are too “radical”. Romney can’t even impress his own base - why would an independent voter in the general election vote for him? Gingrich will never overcome his unfavorable ratings - people don’t forget that easily. A “brokered” convention would leave the “new” GOP candidate only 2 or 3 months to campaign. That’s just not enough time.

So if you’re going to loose - at least loose with integrity. That’s what I say to any voter. Vote for the candidate who best represents your principles and hope that in doing so you will make a statement the rest of the nation will at least pay attention to. I think that has been Ron Paul’s position since the very beginning - and look at the progress he’s made even though he always looses. He takes the long view, keeps at it and makes progress. I respect him for that.
Click to expand...
As Republicans, we don’t plan to “loose” (sic). 😛
 
catharina said:
Santorum spars with Obama on faith, Romney on Olympics resume

foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/18/santorum-questions-obamas-christian-values-romneys-olympics-leadership/#ixzz1mqOfA500

"COLUMBUS, Ohio – White House candidate Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Obama’s Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney’s Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, “ground zero” in the 2012 nomination fight.

Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative policies, said that Obama’s agenda is "not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.

… One of Mitt Romney’s greatest accomplishments, one of the things he talks about most is how he heroically showed up on the scene and bailed out and resolved the problems of the Salt Lake City Olympic Games," Santorum said. “He heroically bailed out the Salt Lake City Olympic Games by heroically going to Congress and asking them for tens of millions of dollars to bail out the Salt Lake games – in an earmark, in an earmark for the Salt Lake Olympic games.”

The Romney campaign does not dispute that congressional earmarks helped save the games. But they noted that Santorum voted for those earmarks, among many others, when he was a senator. …"
Click to expand...
They are not talking governing substance, still yet! Their substance ,let’s just find another wedge to keep it going my way.
Look I know I do not have any answers, any more than any of the other posters on the political forums here with their biases and opinions.
Peace, Carlan
 
gilliam said:
He served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 8 years; he is the author of the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime and authorized $100 million in annual funding for pro-democracy movements within Iran; and, he is the
author of the Syria Accountability Act to combat the threat Syria posed to Israel.

Of those left, he has studied the issue more.
Click to expand...
Translation. Santorum is the strongest advocate of American Imperialism of the GOP field.
 
ishii said:
I disagree with your premise that Obama is unbeatable. He is beatable, if enough people abandon the fatalistic premise that you take. You don’t understand the nature of the evil of Obama’s policies and agenda. If you don’t vote for the GOP candidate and Obama wins do you have any idea what Obama has planned for us? If Sebilius and Obama deliberately postponed actions on HHS mandate until after the election and mislead us about their intentions, and if they want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortificients as part of health coverage do you think that abortion services are far behind? If people follow your advice and Obama wins, and Obama’s war on the Catholic church continues, and Catholic churches are forced to provide abortion coverage, will it make you* feel *better that you “lost with integrity”?

We have a choice this November: to actively oppose evil or to do nothing. I am for actively opposing it.

Ishii
Click to expand...
The truth is you don’t know what Obama has “planned for us” - and even if he is as nefarious as you portray, then the worst that can happen is four years of civil disobedience and a tremendous backlash against the Democratic party in 2016.

That will open the door for strong GOP candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio and Mitch Daniels to get into office. Who will the Democratic party have to go up against them if Obama’s policies turn out to be as heavy handed as you describe?

Because of redistricting after the 2010 census, it is highly unlikely that the GOP will loose the House in 2012 and may even win the Senate. So Obama will again have to contend with a divided government, which will hamstring what you see as his “evil agenda”. However, he has demonstrated a willingness to compromise on economic policy - to the dismay of his liberal base. He will compromise again, because in 2013 the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, the sequester will go into effect, and the debt ceiling will have to be raised. If GOP lawmakers can boost their approval ratings among independents by also demonstrating a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation, they will be all that much stronger in 2016.

Remember, Obama has not even begun to unleash his campaign message and the current GOP candidates are already struggling against him. He is in a statistical tie with Romney in Ohio (realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) and the momentum is on his side. The only hope for the GOP in 2012 is that the economy will tank once again.
 
ishii said:
I disagree with your premise that Obama is unbeatable. He is beatable, if enough people abandon the fatalistic premise that you take. You don’t understand the nature of the evil of Obama’s policies and agenda. If you don’t vote for the GOP candidate and Obama wins do you have any idea what Obama has planned for us? If Sebilius and Obama deliberately postponed actions on HHS mandate until after the election and mislead us about their intentions, and if they want to force Catholic hospitals to provide abortificients as part of health coverage do you think that abortion services are far behind? If people follow your advice and Obama wins, and Obama’s war on the Catholic church continues, and Catholic churches are forced to provide abortion coverage, will it make you* feel *better that you “lost with integrity”?

We have a choice this November: to actively oppose evil or to do nothing. I am for actively opposing it.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Absolutely.👍
 
bellasbane said:
The truth is you don’t know what Obama has “planned for us” - and even if he is as nefarious as you portray, then the worst that can happen is four years of civil disobedience and a tremendous backlash against the Democratic party in 2016.

That will open the door for strong GOP candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio and Mitch Daniels to get into office. Who will the Democratic party have to go up against them if Obama’s policies turn out to be as heavy handed as you describe?

Because of redistricting after the 2010 census, it is highly unlikely that the GOP will loose the House in 2012 and may even win the Senate. So Obama will again have to contend with a divided government, which will hamstring what you see as his “evil agenda”. However, he has demonstrated a willingness to compromise on economic policy - to the dismay of his liberal base. He will compromise again, because in 2013 the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, the sequester will go into effect, and the debt ceiling will have to be raised. If GOP lawmakers can boost their approval ratings among independents by also demonstrating a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation, they will be all that much stronger in 2016.

Remember, Obama has not even begun to unleash his campaign message and the current GOP candidates are already struggling against him. He is in a statistical tie with Romney in Ohio (realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) and the momentum is on his side. The only hope for the GOP in 2012 is that the economy will tank once again.
Click to expand...
For those of us who look beyond the untruths to the truth, who see how our constitution
has been twarted by unconstitutional mandates and regulations, etc, etc, we can
easily see how much more damage Obama will be able to do in a second term when he
no longer has to be worried about being reelected. We can not afford to take that
chance. We need our country back.
 
gilliam said:
He served on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 8 years; he is the author of the Iran Freedom and Support Act, which imposed sanctions on the Iranian regime and authorized $100 million in annual funding for pro-democracy movements within Iran; and, he is the
author of the Syria Accountability Act to combat the threat Syria posed to Israel.

Of those left, he has studied the issue more.
Click to expand...
Interesting, he doesn’t come across as a foreign policy expert to me. More of a typical politician in the pockets of those who would profit from war. The guys a joke.
 
gilliam said:
I don’t think so. That would be Romney who is more of a champion of US corporations
Click to expand...
Santorum wanted sanctions on Iran in his bill he authored, but didn’t want those sanctions to stop Halliburton from doing business with Iran…hmmm.
 
bellasbane said:
The truth is you don’t know what Obama has “planned for us” - and even if he is as nefarious as you portray, then the worst that can happen is four years of civil disobedience and a tremendous backlash against the Democratic party in 2016.

That will open the door for strong GOP candidates like Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Mark Rubio and Mitch Daniels to get into office. Who will the Democratic party have to go up against them if Obama’s policies turn out to be as heavy handed as you describe?

Because of redistricting after the 2010 census, it is highly unlikely that the GOP will loose the House in 2012 and may even win the Senate. So Obama will again have to contend with a divided government, which will hamstring what you see as his “evil agenda”. However, he has demonstrated a willingness to compromise on economic policy - to the dismay of his liberal base. He will compromise again, because in 2013 the Bush tax cuts are set to expire, the sequester will go into effect, and the debt ceiling will have to be raised. If GOP lawmakers can boost their approval ratings among independents by also demonstrating a willingness to compromise for the good of the nation, they will be all that much stronger in 2016.

Remember, Obama has not even begun to unleash his campaign message and the current GOP candidates are already struggling against him. He is in a statistical tie with Romney in Ohio (realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html) and the momentum is on his side. The only hope for the GOP in 2012 is that the economy will tank once again.
Click to expand...
Thanks for your analysis and opinion, but I still disagree. I would say that it is precisely because we don’t know Obama has planned for us and because we know what Obama is doing now with his HHS mandate, that we must not punt the ball upfield in the hopes that we will be saved by some candidate in 2016. Let’s not throw caution to the winds. Also, are you okay with another possible two more supreme court justices picked by Obama? Do you want another two Elena Kagans? There is too much at stake to punt the ball, Bellasbane. As I wrote earlier, We have a choice this November: to actively oppose evil or to do nothing. I am for actively opposing it.

Ishii
 
Santorum 2012!!

Vote for the fascist politician that’s going to declare war on the fascist religion.
 
gilliam said:
You know if we all ended our statements against other candidates this way we would soon sound like Democratic Underground.
Click to expand...
Yes, but it’s sad when a guy like Santorum would make me feel better for voting for a guy like Romney.
 
gilliam said:
You know if we all ended our statements against other candidates this way we would soon sound like Democratic Underground.
Click to expand...
Since he also implied a Haliburton connection, he may already be there…hmmm.
 
rlg94086 said:
Since he also implied a Haliburton connection, he may already be there…hmmm.
Click to expand...
No, just curious as to why he would pander to Halliburton…I have absolutely nothing against that company in general as I have some friends who work for them.
 
Santorum clarifies remarks on women in combat

content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-women-in-combat-emotions-/1
Santorum: ‘Phony Theology’ Referred to Obama’s ‘World View,’ Not His Religion

abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/santorum-phony-theology-referred-to-obamas-world-view-not-his-religion/
Decision 2012: Obama Campaign Criticizes Santorum For Remarks On President’s Christianity

ny1.com/content/news_beats/decision_2012/156287/decision-2012–obama-campaign-criticizes-santorum-for-remarks-on-president-s-christianity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top