Best GOP Candidate

[_random_]

Well, it's off the topic and I don't care to engage in it anymore... my humblest apologies to all those who were offended by calling some members of the democrat party socialists, including the president... but that's how I see it.

You weren't being terribly offensive so much as woefully and persistently inaccurate. Having bad policy is something that can be debated. Being a socialist, however, is pretty clear-cut, and Obama obviously doesn't fit the bill.

 

[GamezRule]

Why is it that whenever I ask for a simple definition the conversation disintegrates?

 

[Ajidica]

Because the respondee would then notice their definition of 'socialism' would make Augosto Pinochet a socialist according to their view. Thus, they are forced to either flee the thread or live with the ridicule resulting from calling someone who followed the Chicago School of economics a socialist.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Moderator Action: They eyes of "Big Government" are upon you all.

 

[GamezRule]

Moderator Action: Please do not post smilie only posts. Such posts are considered spam - Truronian.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Millman]

Can we answer neither. I'm more likely to vote for the person most competent. Whether your intent is to dispense justice in office(good), or be involved in a scandal(bad).

To have someone in there proficient at neither is ludicrous. The alternative is to split a two-partied system into five parties despite other parties objections.

 

[NickyJ]

I'm more likely to vote for the person most competent.

Then your vote should be placed on the final option.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

"None of the above" ?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Then your vote should be placed on the final option.

Ummm... Surely not.

But this thread is incomplete though, since "Domination3000" belongs on the list.

I can't for the life of me see why you support Romney though. He simply isn't conservative. I can understand saying "If it was between him and Obama, I'd pick him" but actually supporting him? Makes no sense...

 

[NickyJ]

Ummm... Surely not someone else.

Ftfy.

But this thread is incomplete though, since "Domination3000" belongs on the list.

I can't for the life of me see why you support Romney though. He simply isn't conservative. I can understand saying "If it was between him and Obama, I'd pick him" but actually supporting him? Makes no sense...

I think he's conservative, he has the best chance, he looks mostly sane, and I think he can handle economics quite well. I really think he's good. I just hope he doesn't pull a McCain and pick Michelle Bachman.

 

[GhostWriter16]

@NickyJ- Actually, the only people I'd take Romney over out of the ones I know about (I don't know about some of the lesser known dudes) are Gincrich and Trump. Gincrich because he's an adulterer and Trump since he's a joke.

Yes, I'd even take Palin over Romney. Why? Pro-life and economically farther to the right. And I don't even like Palin.

I see nothing to like about Romney except when you measure him against Obama. Even still, I think voting for Romney is a moral grey area. Much like voting for Mccain.

I think he's conservative, he has the best chance, he looks mostly sane, and I think he can handle economics quite well. I really think he's good. I just hope he doesn't pull a McCain and pick Michelle Bachman.

Except he isn't conservative, and he can't handle economics well (UHC in Massachusetts.)

Best chance to win? OK fine (Well, except for me) but there's a primary, and you have a choice of who to support in the primary. The primary isn't the election.

Also, here's a curiosity question, if it came down to Ron Paul VS Obama, would you vote for Paul?

 

[kochman]

Is being pro-life really a voting issue for you, Dom?
I mean, it's the law of the land, ruled on by the SC, that abortion is legal... would you seek to have an amendment to outlaw it?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Is being pro-life really a voting issue for you, Dom?
I mean, it's the law of the land, ruled on by the SC, that abortion is legal... would you seek to have an amendment to outlaw it?

Yes, or a state-law, even if it defies the Supreme Court (Its been done before, and it works.)

I'll shoot you a PM though. I can't discuss in real time ATM (I'm SUPPOSED to be studying ATM) and I would rather not derail the thread.

That said, I didn't specifically reference abortion in that post. That said, his inconsistent opinions on it are one of my biggest issues with him.

 

[kochman]

You said you would prefer Palin because she is pro-life.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You said you would prefer Palin because she is pro-life.

Ah yes. My apologies. But yeah, I'd prefer Palin over Romney because she's pro-life. Doesn't mean I'd vote for Palin. I wouldn't vote for either of them in the primary, and I'm not sure if I'd vote for either of them over Obama (Though in truth, I'd vote for Palin over Obama at least since she's principled. But I still don't support her.)

But, in theory, what is the problem with making abortion an issue that impacts your vote? In fact, how could a pro-life person NOT let it impact their vote?

 

[kochman]

Ah yes. My apologies. But yeah, I'd prefer Palin over Romney because she's pro-life. Doesn't mean I'd vote for Palin. I wouldn't vote for either of them in the primary, and I'm not sure if I'd vote for either of them over Obama (Though in truth, I'd vote for Palin over Obama at least since she's principled. But I still don't support her.)

But, in theory, what is the problem with making abortion an issue that impacts your vote? In fact, how could a pro-life person NOT let it impact their vote?

I think it is silly because it is the law of the land. It would take an amendment to change that, and it isn't going to happen.
Without getting into the pro/con arguments for each side, we can at least agree on that.

Therefore, voting for someone because that is an issue they support is like voting for someone because they want the prohibition of alcohol reinstated... it sounds nice, if you like that point of view, but it just isn't going to happen.

It's just something both sides use to further divide... And, try telling a woman she can't get an abortion when she wants one... another reason it is pointless.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I think it is silly because it is the law of the land. It would take an amendment to change that, and it isn't going to happen.
Without getting into the pro/con arguments for each side, we can at least agree on that.

Therefore, voting for someone because that is an issue they support is like voting for someone because they want the prohibition of alcohol reinstated... it sounds nice, if you like that point of view, but it just isn't going to happen.

It's just something both sides use to further divide... And, try telling a woman she can't get an abortion when she wants one... another reason it is pointless.

Well, a lot of things are the law of the land. And yeah, it would take an amendment, or somebody in state government with enough guts to try nullification.

Try telling a woman she can't have an abortion when she wants one? You can absolutely do this, you just think you can't because most pro-lifers aren't willing to enforce it. Try treating people who have abortions how they deserve to be treated, with life imprisonment/execution for murder. Maybe then people would realize what it really is.

I agree abortion won't be banned, but not because it "Can't" be, rather, because people do not care that we kill the defenseless.

I'd rather debate this in private, because TBH, most pro-choice people have no leg to stand on and I'd rather not kill a perfectly good thread with a crap argument... Plus, if I have to sit here and talk to pro-choice people in public for long, I'll end up getting mad and crossing the line of the site rules. So let's just move on, at least in this thread.

 

[Ajidica]

people do not care that we kill the defenseless.

You are quite right. When will people ban the use of hydrogen peroxide that kills those defenseless bacterium?

 

[Arakhor]

How exactly is Palin "principled"?

 

[Ajidica]

She never admits she is wrong about something. Ergo, she is principled and never strays from her beliefs, no matter what those Washington Liberal Insider Elites say about the quality of her basic education.

Come live in America for a year, then all of these things would make sense and you would understand that the UK is a dirty Socialist IslamoFascist Freedom Hating Communistical country.