EPTRepublican nominations - Page 147
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
| ||
|
dOofuS
United States342 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:17 Rodimus Prime wrote: Just wondering for anyone who might know more about this than me - what are the main differences between Gary Johnson and Ron Paul? If vote results weren't an issue and you could pick any President you wanted out of these two, which one would you choose and why? I haven't looked much into Gary Johnson, but from the one debate I watched where he was involved, he seemed convinced that a fair tax was the solution to our problems. For this reason alone, I would pick Ron Paul over Gary Johnson. | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On November 16 2011 16:50 SpiffD wrote: Unless the republicans revive Ronald Reagan, they are going to lose in 2012. I think you're very right. They're just shooting themselves in the foot at every turn. Cain, Perry, Bachman. It's a circus. EDIT: @dirtybird Most of what you said seemed plausible and was stances I agree with, but excise taxes on drugs? Legalizing and taxing drugs will allow people to use them (clearly) in public. So you have someone on lsd driving a car, crashing, and injuring them self and another person (potentially). This costs more tax dollars for the hospital bills than we would have gained from taxes. People wouldn't be smart with their drugs if they were legal any more than they act now; in fact, they would probably be more reckless, as they tend to be with alcohol in this country. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:32 Holytornados wrote: I think you're very right. They're just shooting themselves in the foot at every turn. Cain, Perry, Bachman. It's a circus. The republican establishment has been set on Romney since this whole process began, and many of the people who have been supporting Cain/Perry/etc. know that eventually Romney will likely win the nomination and they will vote for Romney. It's kind of funny when people outside the loop actually believe that these candidates have a serious chance of winning. Maybe a slight chance... but I'd put my money on Romney, and so would most republicans. I haven't been hearing much talk in this thread about Romney, haven't heard much talk calling him insane, haven't seen many "gotcha" youtube clips. No news is good news. I'd say he's a shoe-in, but most conservatives don't want that, so they will delay the inevitable for as long as possible by focusing on Cain et al. | ||
|
Holytornados
United States1022 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:41 jdseemoreglass wrote: The republican establishment has been set on Romney since this whole process began, and many of the people who have been supporting Cain/Perry/etc. know that eventually Romney will likely win the candidacy and they will vote for Romney. It's kind of funny when people outside the loop actually believe that these candidates have a serious chance of winning. Maybe a slight chance... but I'd put my money on Romney, and so would most republicans. I haven't been hearing much talk in this thread about Romney, haven't heard much talk calling him insane, haven't seen many "gotcha" youtube clips. No news is good news. I'd say he's a shoe-in, but most conservatives don't want that, so they will delay the inevitable for as long as possible by focusing on Cain et al. I think that Romney is being lumped in with the other Republicans because of their antics. I think he will win also, but you can't deny that people were (are) behind Perry. I think Bachman never had a chance, but Cain and Perry seriously did. Until they shot themselves in the foot. Edit: correction. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10942 Posts
The Republicans and everyone else know that Romney is the ONLY one that has a slight chance against Obama. BUT they actually don't like him, it's just... They really got no other candidate that is really voteable by a majority of the republicans (let alone americans). | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:43 Holytornados wrote: I think that Romney is being lumped in with the other Republicans because of their antics. I think he will win also, but you can't deny that people were (are) behind Perry. I think Bachman never had a chance, but Cain and Perry seriously did. Until they shot themselves in the foot. Edit: correction. Cain and Perry never had a snow balls chance in hell, for countless reasons. Republicans are just desperate to find someone that isn't Mitt and gave them their 15 minutes of fame. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 17 2011 00:41 jdseemoreglass wrote: The republican establishment has been set on Romney since this whole process began, and many of the people who have been supporting Cain/Perry/etc. know that eventually Romney will likely win the nomination and they will vote for Romney. It's kind of funny when people outside the loop actually believe that these candidates have a serious chance of winning. Maybe a slight chance... but I'd put my money on Romney, and so would most republicans. I haven't been hearing much talk in this thread about Romney, haven't heard much talk calling him insane, haven't seen many "gotcha" youtube clips. No news is good news. I'd say he's a shoe-in, but most conservatives don't want that, so they will delay the inevitable for as long as possible by focusing on Cain et al. Are you serious? Romney is a huge flip flopper just like Obama. See here: http://lnmc.vox.crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/daily-show-takes-mitt-romneys-fli http://mittromneyflipflops.com/ | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:11 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: Are you serious? Romney is a huge flip flopper just like Obama. See here: http://lnmc.vox.crooksandliars.com/kenneth-quinnell/daily-show-takes-mitt-romneys-fli http://mittromneyflipflops.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PURfrORhWPc flip-flopper.... I think that's just another name for a POLITICIAN. People are really trying to smear Romney with something, and if "flip-flopper" is all they can come up with, that simply proves my point that he is a shoe-in. | ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
Proko
United States1022 Posts
| ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:23 Proko wrote: Romney is a shoe-in. Everyone else is too crazy to win. Except huntsman, he's too moderate even though he's the best of them. I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:42 xDaunt wrote: I really don't understand the love for Huntsman. He's Romney-lite. Huntsman is the most empty candidate in the race. He has zero substance. He has zero charisma. There's absolutely nothing to like. Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:25 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @jdseemoreglass No. Not all POLITICIANS are flip floppers. There are a few people out there fighting for us like Ron Paul who doesn't flip flops on the issues and stays ideologically consistent. Here's a vid about a democratic representative fighting against corruption in Washington from inside trading: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3DZh1109W8 They're different kinds of politicians. Some people vote their candidates to represent the immediate views of their constituents, while others vote for ideological candidates who will vote on a rigid set of values. Consequently, flip-flopping is only sometimes an undesirable trait. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:43 jdseemoreglass wrote: Huntsman is the most liberal republican candidate, so of course TL is going to love him. And the most important issue to TL is apparently stating a belief in evolution. I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:47 Talin wrote: I wouldn't say it's the most important. It's more like a prerequisite to be taken seriously. Liberals didn't take Bush seriously either, and he won two terms. Must be because America is so backwards, right? | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:41 jdseemoreglass wrote: I would love to vote for Ron Paul in the general election, but it isn't going to happen. You can vote for Paul in the Republican convention, and then vote for Romney in the general election. All the youtube clips in the world isn't going to change that fate. Why? If he doesn't get Republican nominee I know he's going to try and run as 3rd party. They either buck up and join us or get screwed over. Which is kinda logical if you think about it because if he was running as 3rd party he wouldn't have as much face time as the rest of these stooges. Something he learned in the 1980's when he ran as a libertarian candidate. You pretty much get ignored if you try to run as something else. @aksfjh I agree sometimes politicians have many meanings but, only a true servant of the people would stay consistent with their message without having to lie and flip flop. | ||
| ||
