Best GOP Candidate

Which candidate would you support most over Obama?

  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 27 20.3%
  • Gary Johnson

    Votes: 10 7.5%
  • Tom Miller

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 22 16.5%
  • Sarah Palin

    Votes: 13 9.8%
  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 2 1.5%
  • Newt Gingrich

    Votes: 5 3.8%
  • Herman Cain

    Votes: 3 2.3%
  • General Petraeus

    Votes: 19 14.3%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 32 24.1%

  • Total voters
    133
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are quite right. When will people ban the use of hydrogen peroxide that kills those defenseless bacterium?

You miss my point. One reason why I saw fit not to publicly discuss it.

How exactly is Palin "principled"?

Well, she actually stands by her beliefs. Doesn't mean I agree with all of them.

And for the record, Ajidica, I have no issue with politicians admittng their error, but in the US, 95+ % of the time, "Admitting error" is basically just deciding that you will gain political points by changing your mind on an issue.
 
This delicious opinion article was in the newspaper today:

Dana Milbank said:
Gates' tour de force vs. Palin's tour de farce

It's not about me, Sarah Palin said as she rode a bus emblazoned with her name in three-foot letters. "It's not a publicity-seeking tour," she told her Fox News interviewer, as the cameras rolled.

It was, rather, "about highlighting the great things about America." Such as: Donald Trump's digs at Trump Tower and the Fox News headquarters in New York -- both stops on her "One Nation" bus tour.

Actually, there is a tour under way that highlights the great things about America, but it isn't Palin's. It's the farewell tour of Robert Gates, defense secretary to Presidents Bush and Obama, whose work over the last 41/2 years has dramatically improved the state of the U.S. military. While Palin played cat-and-mouse with the press corps on I-95, Gates set off on a tour of Asia and Europe where he is receiving the gratitude of soldiers and the acclaim of allies.

Gates, who remained on the job at Obama's request, took on sacred weapons programs at the Pentagon, fired ineffective generals, won the surge in Iraq, revived a crumbling war effort in Afghanistan and got Osama bin Laden.

During that same time, Palin quit as Alaska governor, then went on to a life of $100,000 speaking fees, reality TV shows and incendiary political speech.

The dueling tours of Gates and Palin show the best and worst in American public life. Both call themselves Republicans, but he comes from the best tradition of service while she is a study in selfishness. He's self-effacing; she's self-aggrandizing. He harmonized American foreign policy; she put bull's-eyes on Democratic congressional districts and then howled about "blood libel."

It says something about the infirmity of our politics that Gates can't wait to go home while Palin is again being taken seriously as a prospective presidential candidate.

Palin's antics since she quit as governor in 2009 are legion: Hunting caribou on her TLC show, cheering for her daughter on "Dancing With the Stars," stoking the "birther" conspiracy, coining the word "refudiate," and earning millions while specifying "Lear 60 or larger" private jets for her transportation needs.

The past week's bus tour continued the vanity: crashing the Rolling Thunder gathering in Washington wearing black leather, and securing an audience with Trump over pizza in Times Square.

As usual, Palin's sincerity was suspect: Though she claimed, "I honestly don't look at states according to when their primaries are," her tour, by total coincidence, takes her from New Hampshire (where she crashed Mitt Romney's official kickoff by having a nearby clambake) to Iowa, to South Carolina. In her interview with Fox, Palin claimed she didn't participate in a flattering new movie about her, but later confessed she "did a voice-over" for it.

The tour included signature Palin touches: manipulating the media (she refused to divulge her itinerary, resulting in TV news choppers following her approach into Philadelphia), finding financial gain (she requested "generous donations" to SarahPAC), and lobbing rhetorical grenades (America is "going belly up," Obama is "coddling" enemies).

Contrast that with Gates, who set a new standard for honesty when, at his confirmation hearing in 2006, he admitted that the United States was not winning in Iraq. At the Pentagon, he brought new openness: He ended the gag order banning coverage of flag-draped caskets at Dover Air Force Base. He hired a journalist, Geoff Morrell, to repair press relations. He penned personal notes to families of fallen soldiers and attended funerals.

Gates brought new accountability, firing top officials over the outrages at Walter Reed and the mishandling of nuclear weapons. He fought with Congress and the military bureaucracy to redirect funds toward troop protection. His championing of mine-resistant vehicles saved countless lives, and his push for better medevac in Afghanistan cut the average time to hospital for wounded soldiers to 40 minutes from 100.

His unusual frankness continued right into his farewell tour. During his trip, he affirmed that "everything will be on the table" for defense spending cuts, spoke in detail about Chinese "capabilities that are of concern to us," discussed shortcomings in Afghanistan and acknowledged his disagreement with Obama's decision to attack Libya.

To succeed as Gates has under Republican and Democratic presidents is a rare triumph. But Gates departs with characteristic humility.

"The best thing I could do when I get out of here," he told Politico's Mike Allen as he began his tour, "for at least some period of time, is keep my mouth shut."

If only Sarah Palin could grasp that.
 
I would say the primary example of her NOT standing by her beliefs is quite obvious...
She didn't even finish her term as Governor of Alaska, for which she asked people to vote for her to do a 4 year job... and she left for what?
$$$$$
 
Maybe Robert Gates should run for President.
 
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?
It's an issue of voting for me as well. But I'm not going to go into details because this is a loaded Off Topic gun, just waiting to go off in this topic.

@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.
Gingrich and Trump are jokes, as are Bachman and Palin. And in terms of actually standing a chance, Ron Paul kind of fits too.

Yes, I'd even take Palin over Romney. Why? Pro-life and economically farther to the right. And I don't even like Palin.
Palin over Romney? :ack: Palin is the fourth biggest joke, this side of Andromeda. (Trump, The Newtster, and Bachman are the top three) Also, I still believe that Romney is Pro life and further right economically. Just because you used to be a Democrat doesn't make you a Democrat for life.

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 actually found supporting McCain to be easier. If he had avoided bailouts and Palin, he could very well have been sitting in office right now.

Except he isn't conservative, and he can't handle economics well (UHC in Massachusetts.)
I think he's conservative. And I think he can handle economics. He handled Salt Lake City '02 pretty well. As for UHC, true, I disagree with that, but you can't win them all. Much like Ron Paul being against capital punishment, not wanting to get Osama, not wanting military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism, and the like. Also on health care, Romney supports states choosing their own systems, thereby practically nullifying any doubts of whatever system he might implement nationally.

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.
Romney wins both the primaries and the elections. In fact, Romney beats Obama in polls. Looks like Obama's OBL booster is wearing off. And not to brag, but I predicted it right :D:

Spoiler :
He [Obama] has had a significant boost in popularity since the death of bin Laden, and incumbency is a powerful force. I doubt the ability of any of the current names to get enough mass appeal to overcome that force.
This is a temporary boost. It isn't going to last long. Two months at the highest maximum.

Also, here's a curiosity question, if it came down to Ron Paul VS Obama, would you vote for Paul?
If there wasn't a third party candidate that was more likely to win, definitely. Obama stinks, and almost everybody who's a candidate for the Republicans right now is better than Obama. Even Paul.

Maybe Robert Gates should run for President.
He[ck] no. He's awful. I'd rather jump off a 10 story building than cast a vote for him.
 
Gingrich and Trump are jokes, as are Bachman and Palin. And in terms of actually standing a chance, Ron Paul kind of fits too.

Well, I said Trump is a "Joke" because he doesn't care about winning or political change, he just wants attention. Palin actually, in my opinion, does want to do good for this country, and wanted to as VP (And if she runs, she'll want to as POTUS too.) Do I support her? Heck no. But she's not a total joke.

As for Ron Paul, yeah, he is a "Joke" if you actually think victory is his goal. I don't seriously think Ron Paul will win. He's too principled for that (And even his opponents admit this.)

Much like Ron Paul being against capital punishment

No, he just doesn't want it as a Federal penalty. He still believes in it at the state level. While I theoretically disagree with him, given how utterly corrupt the Fed Govt. is, I really don't blame him.
not wanting to get Osama,

Not so, he simply disagreed with Obama's method (While I happen to agree with Obama here, that's an exceptional circumstance, and I don't think not doing so would have caused us serious harm, just the lack of a moral victory. Not the end of the world IMO.

not wanting military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism, and the like.

Wait, terrorists are coming by land? I don't think so.

And I see little reason to stop the border just to stop drugs. Now, fights between drug lords, yes, keep it in Mexico, but I doubt Paul opposes this.
 
He's too principled for that (And even his opponents admit this.)
He isn't principled, it is just reactionary white people aren't in the majority in America.
given how utterly corrupt the Fed Govt.
The Federal Government is no more corrupt then any state government. Less corrupt likely since of all the regulations it has to comply with and media scrutiny.
 
He isn't principled, it is just reactionary white people aren't in the majority in America.

"Principled" doesn't necessarily = support. And most of his opponents admit he has principles, even if they disagree with him.

The Federal Government is no more corrupt then any state government. Less corrupt likely since of all the regulations it has to comply with and media scrutiny.

Size is a powerful force.
 
Well, I said Trump is a "Joke" because he doesn't care about winning or political change, he just wants attention. Palin actually, in my opinion, does want to do good for this country, and wanted to as VP (And if she runs, she'll want to as POTUS too.) Do I support her? Heck no. But she's not a total joke.
Palin wants to try, but her potential was destroyed before it began. She's been turned into the court jester, which makes her basically a joke.

As for Ron Paul, yeah, he is a "Joke" if you actually think victory is his goal. I don't seriously think Ron Paul will win. He's too principled for that (And even his opponents admit this.)
Is that not his goal? I thought the whole point of running for President was to win. If winning isn't his goal, then I think he would belong in the "Trump" bin, since Trump "doesn't care about winning".

No, he just doesn't want it as a Federal penalty. He still believes in it at the state level. While I theoretically disagree with him, given how utterly corrupt the Fed Govt. is, I really don't blame him.
I don't really see the difference between Federal capital punishment and state capital punishment. Both sound like the death penalty to me.

Not so, he simply disagreed with Obama's method (While I happen to agree with Obama here, that's an exceptional circumstance, and I don't think not doing so would have caused us serious harm, just the lack of a moral victory. Not the end of the world IMO.
Still, he doesn't have the spotless record that you seem to seek from Romney.

Wait, terrorists are coming by land? I don't think so.
They could easily do so, considering that it is poorly defended. In fact, wasn't there some news story about some terrorists caught in Tennessee? I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't be able to get on an airplane and just fly into the U.S. without being caught. Thus, them utilizing an easy border.

And I see little reason to stop the border just to stop drugs. Now, fights between drug lords, yes, keep it in Mexico, but I doubt Paul opposes this.
Drug lords come with the drugs. Letting illegal drugs and illegal immigrants come in through the border is just begging for drug cartels to start moving up.
 
He[ck] no. He's awful. I'd rather jump off a 10 story building than cast a vote for him.

Care to explain why?
 
And most of his opponents admit he has principles, even if they disagree with him.
Principled as in "yes, he rountinely supports pandering to reactionary white people".

Size is a powerful force.
Meaningless statement is meaningless.
 
Is that not his goal? I thought the whole point of running for President was to win. If winning isn't his goal, then I think he would belong in the "Trump" bin, since Trump "doesn't care about winning".

Well, there's a difference. Paul would really like to win, but he's not willing to compromise on his principles to do it, so he knows he won't win. Trump is basically RL trolling.

I don't really see the difference between Federal capital punishment and state capital punishment. Both sound like the death penalty to me.

Paul feels the Federal government makes too many mistakes and isn't constitutitonally allowed to use it, but he feels the states should be allowed to choose to use it, and he supports them doing so at their discretion. So, he's certainly not as pro Capital Punishment as me, but he doesn't 100% oppose it.

Still, he doesn't have the spotless record that you seem to seek from Romney.

Paul is not perfect, but he is honest, principled, and agrees with me on just about every issue that I actually care much about, or is at least reasonably close to my opinion on said issues. And I'll be honest, OBL's death didn't save lives. It needed to be done, but I don't actually think killing him killed Al Queda, it just made him mad. I disagree with Ron Paul mainly since I don't like Pakistan and don't think they have any "Right" to harbor a criminal. But its hardly changed my daily life or anyone's in this country.

Ron Paul is pro-life, supports a small government, and economically right-wing. That is a rare combination. Add actually being honest to the mix, and we have probably the best politician a conservative could want. He may have a few black marks, but who doesn't? I don't expect a politician to perfectly agree with me on every issue, but I'd like him to be consistent on every issue. Paul, quite truly, applies. TBH, I don't even think I apply. I compromise sometimes. I don't think compromising necessarily kills a candidate, depending on the circumstances, but you have to admire the guy who won't.

Mitt Romney? He's far from just "Not perfect," he's wildly inconsistent. Mitt Romney opposes criminal penalties for abortion, yet he says he's pro-life. Right there, there's a contradiction. At best, he's a pro-choice person who thinks women would be better off choosing life. But who doesn't think that? Who is going to say "Oh, get that abortion, I'll cheer you on!" (Answer: Nobody.) Simply saying that murdering a fetus is immoral does not a pro-life politician make.

And he claims to be fiscally conservative, yet he put Health Care under the control of Masachusettes. Now, I know liberals in the audience will argue, "But that IS fiscally conservative" but I know you aren't going to buy it. Therefore, we have another contradiction.

And you have this, from Wikipedia:

Romney has been consistent in many of his political positions. However, Romney's position or choice of emphasis on certain social issues, including abortion,[97] some aspects of gay rights,[nb 11] some aspects of stem cell research,[nb 12] and some aspects of abstinence-only sex education,[nb 13] evolved into a more conservative stance during his time as governor. The change in 2005 on abortion drew particular attention and was the result of what Romney described as an epiphany experienced while investigating stem cell research issues.[97] He later said, "Changing my position was in line with an ongoing struggle that anyone has that is opposed to abortion personally, vehemently opposed to it, and yet says, 'Well, I'll let other people make that decision.' And you say to yourself, but if you believe that you're taking innocent life, it's hard to justify letting other people make that decision."[97]

While, TBH, "Gay rights" issues are going to mean almost nothing to me during a vote, his positions on abortion and stem-cell research are simply unacceptable.

Still think he's pro-life? Check out the facts:

One of the great things about our nation... is that we're each entitled to have strong personal beliefs, and we encourage other people to do the same. But as a nation, we recognize the right of all people to believe as they want and not to impose our beliefs on other people. I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law, and the right of a woman to make that choice, and my personal beliefs, like the personal beliefs of other people, should not be brought into a political campaign."[7]

Romney clearly held pro-choice positions. That he thinks abortion is immoral himself means little.

And this:

Romney has consistently opposed Partial Birth Abortion and supports restrictions on abortion such as parental notification provisions.[18][19][20] Romney opposes criminal penalties against women who undergo abortion and believes that society's "hearts and minds" must be changed for policy implementation to be successful.[18][21][22]

So, OK fine, he's not as bad as Obama. That says how much? Not that he's a good candidate I don't think. He says he is pro-life, but he's a liar. There is no way I can support him, and it pains me to see a genuine libertarian-leaning conservative such as yourself to support such a joke.

And more Romneyesque hypocricy on gun control:

When he supported the Brady Bill in 1994, Romney said, "That's not going to make me the hero of the NRA. I don't line up with the NRA."[46] Just before declaring his candidacy for the 2008 Republican nomination for president, Romney joined the National Rifle Association (NRA).[45][45][48] In 2005, Romney declared the 31st anniversary of the Gun Owners' Action League "Right to Bear Arms Day"[49]

So Romney magically goes from anti-gun to pro-gun right before he runs for President? He's no friend to the gun-owner, that's for sure (I'm postulating that based on other issues you've commented on, you support the right to bear arms. However, even if this isn't true, you can't possibly appreciate the blatant mindchanging.)

And on Embryonic Stem-cell research:

Romney has said that research using human embryos created during fertility treatments is ethical but opposes using federal funds to support it.[66] He opposes research using cloned embryos created by implanting human DNA into donated eggs.[66] When he ran for governor in 2002, Romney strongly advocated stem-cell research in general terms, and he promised to lobby George W. Bush to embrace such research.[66] During his presidential campaign, however, Romney renounced his 2002 position and said that he now agrees with Bush's decision to ban federal funding for research on excess embryos.[66]

Yet another case where his position magically changed on account of his candidacy. Does this strike you as coincidential?

And on UHC:

Romney opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known by "Obamacare" and similar names.[106] Immediately following the March 2010 passage of it and it being signed by President Barack Obama, Romney attacked the landmark legislation as "an unconscionable abuse of power".[106][107] He said, "The act should be repealed. That campaign begins today."[106] The new federal law was in many ways similar to the Massachusetts health care reform passed during Romney's term.[107] While acknowledging that his plan was not perfect and still was a work in progress, Romney did not back away from it; he focused on its having had bipartisan support in the state legislature, while the Obama plan received no Republican support at all in Congress.[107]

So basically, Romney's plan was all good because the GOP supported it? Do you (Romney) not understand how politics work? You're GOP so the GOP will support you. That's how it works. Blatant inconsistency.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney

Thanks for convincing me to do this BTW. You've utterly convinced me that if its Romney VS Obama, I should decide upon apathy. Thanks for your help. This man is no conservative. He's a liberal, who pretends to be conservative to get support. That he's not as radical as Obama doesn't make him a non-liar.

Now, I agree that Ron Paul is NOT perfect. However, he's solidly consistent. There's simply no way to argue against that. And TBH, you only seem to disagree with him on a few issues, most of which he thinks should be up to the states anyway. Your biggest issue with him, Osama Bin Laden, doesn't actually affect you, and even if he's wrong, he's consistent. You can't say that about Romney. In fact, you can't say that about many people.

So Ron Paul pwns Romney. If you can come up with one case of him being hypocritical (Note, not the same thing as disagreement) let me know. I think you can't do it.
 
I will never understand why people assail Romney for implementing health care at the State level. Does nobody here grasp federalism?
 
I will never understand why people assail Romney for implementing health care at the State level. Does nobody here grasp federalism?

Actually, I cited MANY places Romney is inconsistent, that was just one, and actually it was at the bottom.

And yes, I grasp Federalism, and yes, technically speaking, the states can arguably pass UHC. HOWEVER, Romney did not say it was state level to defend it. He said it was bipartisan to defend it. Which is clearly crap reasoning.

I don't know why so many people support Romney when he's obviously just a liberal pretending to be a conservative. Especially you, VRWC, with your strong support of gun rights...
 
Romney did not say it was state level to defend it. He said it was bipartisan to defend it. Which is clearly crap reasoning.
Why? Is there anything in the state constitution that says Romney couldn't have passed RomneyCare? Why is a bipartisan justification for a bill operating under federalism 'worse' then simply justifying it through federalism.
 
Why? Is there anything in the state constitution that says Romney couldn't have passed RomneyCare? Why is a bipartisan justification for a bill operating under federalism 'worse' then simply justifying it through federalism.

Well, "Its different than Obamacare because more politicians supported it" is a really crappy argument. What's right is right, what's wrong is wrong.

I'll be honest, I'm farther right fiscally than VRWC, and I wouldn't like to see UHC at the state OR Federal level. That said, if he had said "The reason Romneycare is OK but Obamacare isn't is that the decisions should be made state to state" at least the reasoning is logical...
 
Well, "Its different than Obamacare because more politicians supported it" is a really crappy argument. What's right is right, what's wrong is wrong.

I'll be honest, I'm farther right fiscally than VRWC, and I wouldn't like to see UHC at the state OR Federal level. That said, if he had said "The reason Romneycare is OK but Obamacare isn't is that the decisions should be made state to state" at least the reasoning is logical...
Logical that it fits the rules of a constitution,
or
Logical that it fits the realities of politics?
Let's not ignore logic outside our scope of an ordered, rational system.
 
Logical that it fits the rules of a constitution,
or
Logical that it fits the realities of politics?
Let's not ignore logic outside our scope of an ordered, rational system.

I'd say both. A case could be made that UHC on the state-level is a good idea but that the Federal government would not manage it well that they couldn't do it. Other arguments could be made by a purist Federalist as well (I'm a Federalist, but not a purist.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom