EPTRepublican nominations - Page 196
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
/facepalm | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On January 02 2012 09:35 darthfoley wrote: santorum is fucking revolting...if he wins... /facepalm Santorum has about as much chance of beating Obama than my turtle does. He is far too extreme to get any moderate or independant voters. Him winning the primary just increases the potential lulz, which one can never do with too much of. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On January 02 2012 09:42 On_Slaught wrote: Santorum has about as much chance of beating Obama than my turtle does. He is far too extreme to get any moderate or independant voters. Him winning the primary just increases the potential lulz, which one can never do with too much of. indeed,hes such a scumball with most...all of his views. | ||
|
IMBAtv-BaZooKa
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 02 2012 09:50 IMBAtv-BaZooKa wrote: Anyone who wouldn't vote for Ron Paul is either ignorant, or doesn't deserve to be an American. Or they actually have looked at the actions and words of Ron Paul, and realize how horrible of a president he would be. I know he is a popular candidate for people on the internet and for people who enjoy talking about starting violent revolutions, but at least for me, I cannot support someone who wants remove things such as the Civil Rights Act, abortion rights, or someone who feels sexual harassment laws shouldn't be on the books anymore. Of course he has some good ideas, and is honest about most of his views, but that doesn't mean he is the best choice. Maybe you're the ignorant one. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 02 2012 09:24 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So now Santorum is surging in polls in Iowa, and could possibly get a win there. I expect Romney to back track from saying he would be for getting rid of the dream act. Latest polling I have seen is still predicting a Romney win tho. Paul 2nd, Sanctorum prolly third. Makes Romney the doomed frontrunner I guess, both Paul and Sanctorum are unelectable in a general. And I don't see Romney as someone that's going to energize the republican party in the general either. It really can't get much better for Obama to be honest. | ||
|
TotalNightmare
Germany139 Posts
| ||
|
darthfoley
United States8003 Posts
On January 02 2012 10:28 TotalNightmare wrote: A nation should be ashamed if a party even DARES to put up candidates who are so STUPID, ignorant and such extremists. I would cry for you if I didn't know that some people take those candidates seriously. indeed. i despise all but 2 of the republican running. luckily i'm a liberal and i can't vote yet. | ||
|
Mo0Rauder
Canada182 Posts
On January 02 2012 10:28 TotalNightmare wrote: A nation should be ashamed if a party even DARES to put up candidates who are so STUPID, ignorant and such extremists. I would cry for you if I didn't know that some people take those candidates seriously. If I was a gambling man, I would bet that 90% of the candidates are shills. They have probably been paid or since most are businessmen have been assured that their interests will be met. on a side note here is an interesting paradigm: The Toad and The Scorpion, it goes something like this: There is a scorpion that needs to cross a river, and he notices a toad nearby; he asks the toad "hey let me cross the river on your back" the toad says "no, you are a scorpion you will sting me if I let you on my back to cross the river" the scorpion says "why would I do that, We will both drown as I can't swim" The toad hesitates but agrees as the scorpion makes a good point, why would he kill us both. Halfway across the river the scorpion sting the toad and they both begin to sink into the river. "Why?" asks the toad, the scorpion says "because it's my nature" now think about this: re-elect a president who is controlled by the banks and corporate interests, he is going to continue to steal all of your money, its the banker's nature to be greedy and its the corporations mantra "maximum profit minimum loss". It looks to me like the best candidate to "heal the nation" is Ron Paul... It's interesting that the news outlets seem to be tilted in favor of all the other candidates with air time, interviews, analysis. Yet on TL.net he leads in votes by district or whatever (can't remember terminology). I wouldn't be shocked to see him win in a landslide, maybe the votes will be tilted as much as the TL.net poll, it would be interesting to see his actual numbers (un-rigged by mainstream outlets). just my thoughts, I'm a bit crazy to be honest though | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 02 2012 10:08 Saryph wrote: Or they actually have looked at the actions and words of Ron Paul, and realize how horrible of a president he would be. I know he is a popular candidate for people on the internet and for people who enjoy talking about starting violent revolutions, but at least for me, I cannot support someone who wants remove things such as the Civil Rights Act, abortion rights, or someone who feels sexual harassment laws shouldn't be on the books anymore. Of course he has some good ideas, and is honest about most of his views, but that doesn't mean he is the best choice. Maybe you're the ignorant one. When did he say he would remove the Civil RIghts Act as President? I think you are confused to what Ron Paul actually stands as a candidate running for POTUS. Just to give you a clear hint. Here's Glenn Greenswald a progressive on Ron Paul, "His nomination would mean that it is the Republican candidate — not the Democrat — who would be the anti-war, pro-due-process, pro-transparency, anti-Fed, anti-Wall-Street-bailout, anti-Drug-War advocate." http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/?miaou | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On January 02 2012 12:46 Saryph wrote: Ron Paul has said repeatedly in interviews that he would have voted against the Civil Rights Act. He feels that it is not the role of the government to tell a business to whom it can or cannot deny service. Its a very similar view to how he feels abortion should be illegal, as the Constitution doesn't talk about abortion in the original document, and as such the federal courts/government has no say. Note that I'm not accusing him of being a racist, I don't know him on a level to make a decision on that, I don't think any of us do. However, I'm not confident enough in people as a whole to not discriminate against each other if given the opportunity to do so. Society as a whole is a lot better on this subject than almost 50 years ago when the Civil Rights Act was originally passed, but a quick look at towns across the country making it illegal to build a mosque in their communities makes you realize we still have a lot of progress to make. I think you misunderstand his stance on the Civil Rights act: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." from http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/ | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
PPP Iowa: Paul 20, Romney 19, Santorum 18, Gingrich 14, Perry 10, Bachmann 8. Stand by for updated forecasts... | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 02 2012 12:12 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh I'm not too sure about that because in your comments you said you supported Obama. So, that makes me think that you are already biased towards the other candidates running. Also, I think it's hilarious that you think Bush did a good job as president when he helped cause the financial crisis and made it worse by appointing Bernanke. Not only that but, I see you saying how good Huntsman is....are you serious? Do you want another war monger for President? If you are confused to what I mean then you aren't really paying attention to the debates that have already happened. Huntsman would bomb the shit out of Iran and I wouldn't want someone like that in office. Anyways, you need to do your research before you go on to say how much you support so and so as a candidate. I think Bush did SOME things alright, but not all. I think his economic policy was largely ridiculous. Huntsman seems fairly reasonable on most issues, but I'm far from supporting him since he hasn't been vetted. On the line of Iran, we saw exactly how much support the Libya got, with a threat of impeachment over what amounted to a relative backseat role. He would never get the country behind him for a direct engagement with Iran, without some SERIOUS intelligence to back it up. But even then, it's a far more sensible approach to foreign policy than "CLOSE ALL THE FOREIGN BASES!" | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The Republican caucus in Iowa is headed for a photo finish, with the three leading contenders all within two points of each other. Ron Paul is at 20%, Mitt Romney at 19%, and Rick Santorum at 18%. Rounding out the field are Newt Gingrich at 14%, Rick Perry at 10%, Michele Bachmann at 8%, Jon Huntsman at 4%, and Buddy Roemer at 2%. The momentum in the race is completely on Santorum's side. He's moved up 8 points since a PPP poll earlier in the week, while no one else has seen more than a one point gain in their support. Among voters who say they decided who to vote for in the last seven days he leads Romney 29-17 with Paul and Gingrich both at 13. Santorum's net favorability of 60/30 makes him easily the most popular candidate in the field. No one else's favorability exceeds 52%. He may also have more room to grow in the final 48 hours of the campaign than the other front runners: 14% of voters say he's their second choice to 11% for Romney and only 8% for Paul. Santorum's taken the lead with two key groups of Republican voters: with Tea Partiers he's at 23% to 18% for Gingrich, 16% for Paul, 15% for Bachmann, and only 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he's at 24% to 16% for Gingrich, and 15% for Paul and Romney. Other than Santorum's rise the other big story of this week is Paul's fall. He was at 24% earlier in the week but has dropped to 20%. That decline in support coincides with a precipitous drop in his favorability numbers. On our last poll he was at +13 (53/40), but that's gone down 21 points on the margin to -8 (43/51). Source | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
| ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
| ||
|
Rodimus Prime
182 Posts
On January 02 2012 09:42 On_Slaught wrote: Santorum has about as much chance of beating Obama than my turtle does. He is far too extreme to get any moderate or independant voters. Him winning the primary just increases the potential lulz, which one can never do with too much of. Ever heard of the two term W Bush? | ||
| ||
