Election of 2012....Who ya got?

AE14 said:
AX please take the blinders off. Online polls are like straw polls, utterly useless. How many of the Paul cult do you think sit there and actually vote over and over again? Probably most. Face it, he is not going to win. The right will never vote for him, and his base is too inconsistent to actually make it to the polls. He will be gone after a few primaries like most.

The interesting thing to me was Perry's fall and Huntsman making slight gains (actually in double digits in NH). Perry looks awful, and might not last with his debate performances.

Although, it might not matter, as the rumor mill is starting to move quickly that Mitch Daniels has convinced Chris Christie to run. Being a public employee in NJ, that makes me laugh :rofl:
Click to expand...

I never said he was going to win, I just said he is winning the debate polls. I dont think he will win, he has too much to overcome...other candidates have more money, most people judge on a nominee's acting skills (Obama is a great example), many people judge on a nominee's looks rather than content (kennedy vs. nixon debate radio vs. tv), elections are stolen w/ fraud, corporate control of the media intentionally ignoring Ron Paul and acting as if he were irrelevent all the time has a huge influence on the voters (marketing)...etc. With all that I consider Ron Paul the true frontrunner, but thats just my opinion and he still has a small chance which is better than 0 chance.

Anyways, Im going to be bored if Ron Paul doesnt advance, so in that case Id love to see Donald Trump run just for its entertainment value since them I most likely will not be voting anyways unless Ralph Nader runs, or Paul runs as an independent.
 
ax1 said:
I never said he was going to win, I just said he is winning the debate polls. I dont think he will win, he has too much to overcome...other candidates have more money, most people judge on a nominee's acting skills (Obama is a great example), many people judge on a nominee's looks rather than content (kennedy vs. nixon debate radio vs. tv), elections are stolen w/ fraud, corporate control of the media intentionally ignoring Ron Paul and acting as if he were irrelevent all the time has a huge influence on the voters (marketing)...etc. With all that I consider Ron Paul the true frontrunner, but thats just my opinion and he still has a small chance which is better than 0 chance.

Anyways, Im going to be bored if Ron Paul doesnt advance, so in that case Id love to see Donald Trump run just for its entertainment value since them I most likely will not be voting anyways unless Ralph Nader runs, or Paul runs as an independent.
Click to expand...
I dont disagree on certain points, but to consider him the front runner is laughable. He won the california straw poll with 388 votes, and that makes him a front runner? He wins online polls, where you can vote numerous times, and he is the front runner? Come on....I will agree he doesnt get the appropriate press for a candidate who is either ranked 3,4,5 depending on the national polls. However, right now, he is no where close to being the front runner, and soon (thank goodness) neither will Perry. Now if we can just get Huntsman more press and get an actual moderate into the limelight, I will be pleased.
 
AE14 said:
I dont disagree on certain points, but to consider him the front runner is laughable. He won the california straw poll with 388 votes, and that makes him a front runner? He wins online polls, where you can vote numerous times, and he is the front runner? Come on....I will agree he doesnt get the appropriate press for a candidate who is either ranked 3,4,5 depending on the national polls. However, right now, he is no where close to being the front runner, and soon (thank goodness) neither will Perry. Now if we can just get Huntsman more press and get an actual moderate into the limelight, I will be pleased.
Click to expand...

You do realize most online polls are linked to IP address so that you can only vote once right? Although there are ways around this I dont think most people are gonna take the time to do that.
I am voting for Ron Paul as I feel he is the last chance we have to get this country back to constitutionality but my second choice would have to be Huntsman.
 
drrockzo said:
I am voting for Ron Paul as I feel he is the last chance we have to get this country back to constitutionality but my second choice would have to be Huntsman.
Click to expand...

Huntsman was a Council of Foreign Relations member in the 90's. Take it for what you feel about the CFR or what you know about them, I just saying in case you weren't aware of it. In my opinion a vote for Hunstman is the same as Obama, Bush, or Dick Cheney.
 
ax1 said:
Huntsman was a Council of Foreign Relations member in the 90's. Take it for what you feel about the CFR or what you know about them, I just saying in case you weren't aware of it. In my opinion a vote for Hunstman is the same as Obama, Bush, or Dick Cheney.
Click to expand...

i did not know that. That may change my mind.
 
AE14 said:
I dont disagree on certain points, but to consider him the front runner is laughable. He won the california straw poll with 388 votes, and that makes him a front runner? He wins online polls, where you can vote numerous times, and he is the front runner? Come on....I will agree he doesnt get the appropriate press for a candidate who is either ranked 3,4,5 depending on the national polls. However, right now, he is no where close to being the front runner, and soon (thank goodness) neither will Perry. Now if we can just get Huntsman more press and get an actual moderate into the limelight, I will be pleased.
Click to expand...

I cant argue with you about straw polls and online polls because your correct about that. There is some meaning to it as the GOP canceled the Texas straw poll in what I believe was a campaign tactic in support for Perry which they share the same home state.

When I say Ron Paul is the frontrunner, thats just a bias thing on my part, and Ill admit to that. My idea of a front runner isnt based on popular support, although I believe Ron Paul's popularity is rapidly increasing the last couple of years. To what extent, Im not sure. My idea of a front runner is the one what qualifies the most to lead the country...in my opinion of course.
 
drrockzo said:
i did not know that. That may change my mind.
Click to expand...

Huntsman has been appointed by Bush Sr. in the early 90's as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce and later as United States Ambassador to Singapore during 92-93.

Huntsman was also appointed positions of powers by Bush Jr. that you can look into.

They are all connected..the list can go on but him being a CFR I think you already get my drift.
 
ax1 said:
I cant argue with you about straw polls and online polls because your correct about that. There is some meaning to it as the GOP canceled the Texas straw poll in what I believe was a campaign tactic in support for Perry which they share the same home state.

When I say Ron Paul is the frontrunner, thats just a bias thing on my part, and Ill admit to that. My idea of a front runner isnt based on popular support, although I believe Ron Paul's popularity is rapidly increasing the last couple of years. To what extent, Im not sure. My idea of a front runner is the one what qualifies the most to lead the country...in my opinion of course.
Click to expand...

this is very honest, much respect for that.

To me, the front runner is a mixture of national polls (state polls can be utterly useless) and leadership potential based on record. Paul is just too far behind and based on his stances is not a "modern" republican. He will never get that support for their nomination. Depending on if Christie jumps, the repubs might have to reluctantly pick Romney. Once Perry officially falters too much, I think they are going to push the new Taft (Christie) as their guy. Sad choice
 
AE14 said:
AX please take the blinders off. Online polls are like straw polls, utterly useless. How many of the Paul cult do you think sit there and actually vote over and over again? Probably most. Face it, he is not going to win. The right will never vote for him, and his base is too inconsistent to actually make it to the polls. He will be gone after a few primaries like most.

The interesting thing to me was Perry's fall and Huntsman making slight gains (actually in double digits in NH). Perry looks awful, and might not last with his debate performances.

Although, it might not matter, as the rumor mill is starting to move quickly that Mitch Daniels has convinced Chris Christie to run. Being a public employee in NJ, that makes me laugh :rofl:
Click to expand...

You are falling into the mainstream media trap. Skip whose in third place to talk about who just reached fourth
 
EasyEJL said:
You are falling into the mainstream media trap. Skip whose in third place to talk about who just reached fourth
Click to expand...

Gotta disagree E. Not skipping him at all. Just rationally analyzing the situation. Paul has no shot with mainstream repubs.
 
Since you are interested in straw polls ax, did you see florida? Paul was 5th. Just an FYI.
 
AE14 said:
Since you are interested in straw polls ax, did you see florida? Paul was 5th. Just an FYI.
Click to expand...

I wasnt aware of that, just looked into it and saw that Cain won.

You know what sucks is that I cant even vote in the primaries since Im not registered with a specific party here in NY, yet In California you can (I believe).
 
This is the best debate yet, candidates duke it out on Saturday Night Live last night.
Invalid Link Removed
 
Forgot to mention.....Michigan straw poll yesterday with Romney at 50%. No surprise with that one.
 
Anyone see the new foxnews poll? Romney, Perry, Cain, Newt, then Paul. Just saying.
 
AE14 said:
Anyone see the new foxnews poll? Romney, Perry, Cain, Newt, then Paul. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I saw that, but I think you misread it. The poll said Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, then Paul.
 
ax1 said:
I saw that, but I think you misread it. The poll said Bush, Bush, Bush, Bush, then Paul.
Click to expand...

Too funny., considering Paul is a lifelong politician.
 
AE14 said:
Too funny., considering Paul is a lifelong politician.
Click to expand...

Well, there are politicians who....
1. support war, police state, war on drugs/terrorism, anti-constitutional, pro-fed, pro-globalism, etc...and then there are polititions who are
2. anti-war, police state, anti war on drugs/terrorism, pro-constitutional, anti-fed, anti-globalism, etc....

I prefer lifelong politicians of the latter 2nd type. For example of what I dont want..... Obama is a younger politician who is all of the first type of politician listed. What Im saying is, its not if they are lifelong or new and vibrant that makes up the character, its what they have been fighting for the entire time.

Paul is the only anti-war candidate out of all the candidates, that alone is a night/day difference in regards to foreign/domestic policy and makes Ron Paul the only serious candidate in regards to fixing the economy, foreign relations, etc.
 
ax1 said:
Well, there are politicians who....
1. support war, police state, war on drugs/terrorism, anti-constitutional, pro-fed, pro-globalism, etc...and then there are polititions who are
2. anti-war, police state, anti war on drugs/terrorism, pro-constitutional, anti-fed, anti-globalism, etc....

I prefer lifelong politicians of the latter 2nd type. For example of what I dont want..... Obama is a younger politician who is all of the first type of politician listed. What Im saying is, its not if they are lifelong or new and vibrant that makes up the character, its what they have been fighting for the entire time.

Paul is the only anti-war candidate out of all the candidates, that alone is a night/day difference in regards to foreign/domestic policy and makes Ron Paul the only serious candidate in regards to fixing the economy, foreign relations, etc.
Click to expand...

I understand and am antiwar myself. However, we need to be realistic and Paul is not. Pulling troops is naive, as there a flip side to the coin. We are a global community at this point and we rely on relationships around the world. We have to make the best of situations we are in, not create more mess. Which is what Paul will do.

Add in 30+ years in politics, an that
Makes him an unattractive candidate IMO.
 
AE14 said:
I understand and am antiwar myself. However, we need to be realistic and Paul is not. Pulling troops is naive, as there a flip side to the coin. We are a global community at this point and we rely on relationships around the world. We have to make the best of situations we are in, not create more mess. Which is what Paul will do.

Add in 30+ years in politics, an that
Makes him an unattractive candidate IMO.
Click to expand...

What you state is subject to a huge debate to get into all the details...too much time for both of us to get totally into, but I think we marched right in, and we can march right out. We cannot afford this any longer, and many of these countries dont want us there and want us to go away as soon as possible.

They are only expanding wars and control, look at Libya for example. We are only creating a bigger mess by the year, and by the month. Global relationships is being friendly with other countries, not bombing the crap out of them and steeling their resources.

This is a matter of what your going to believe however, but I feel Paul is far from naive, and the only realistic candidate on the platform in regards to making things right both domestically and internationally. To me a vote for any war supporting candidate (unless its a war we have to fight) is just support for death and blood stain, and support for the big corporations profiting on the military industrial complex.

I dont know why you judge a candidate by the time they put into politics rather than what they fight for during that time...which in your opinion of course Paul is not what you look for in a leader so its easy for you to poke that at him.
 
ax1 said:
What you state is subject to a huge debate to get into all the details...too much time for both of us to get totally into, but I think we marched right in, and we can march right out. We cannot afford this any longer, and many of these countries dont want us there and want us to go away as soon as possible.

They are only expanding wars and control, look at Libya for example. We are only creating a bigger mess by the year, and by the month. Global relationships is being friendly with other countries, not bombing the crap out of them and steeling their resources.

This is a matter of what your going to believe however, but I feel Paul is far from naive, and the only realistic candidate on the platform in regards to making things right both domestically and internationally. To me a vote for any war supporting candidate (unless its a war we have to fight) is just support for death and blood stain, and support for the big corporations profiting on the military industrial complex.

I dont know why you judge a candidate by the time they put into politics rather than what they fight for during that time...which in your opinion of course Paul is not what you look for in a leader so its easy for you to poke that at him.
Click to expand...

I agree, the debate is not a simple one. The problem to me however, is that we have created an enormous mess, and to walk away from it and leave it uncertain would be an unmitigated disaster. Similar to vietnam. I am in no way supporting expanding war efforts, and do support gradual troop withdrawal, however, we have to make sure that all of OUR interests are protected. At the end of the day, we might as well reap some benefit for our own disasters, specifically since we created them.

With that said, Paul is without a doubt naive. To say that we are going to bring everyone home right now is foolish and shows an ineptitude with regards to foreign policy.

Why dont I agree with Paul? He is no different than most up there imo. The most pressing issue to me is jobs, and job growth. His plans (based on our previous discussions) are small scale, and to be honest, his economic policy of "I will wipe out the fed, end the wars" etc...show little evidence that he understands what his job would be. I do however support his stance on the 10th amendment, but that is all I can get behind him on.

There is NO great candidate, and my vote will be cast as a lesser of 2 evils. Right now, out of all possible candidates here is my take:
Perry/Bachman: religious fanatics who will not last on a national scene as has already been evidenced
Newt: very experienced, has solidified answers, would be surprised if the base supported him based on his personal history
Romney: fairly moderate, business background COULD be a plus, not 100% sold
Cain: 9-9-9 will not work. Most economists agree. Will fade imo
Paul: explained above
Huntsman: a real moderate imo, good job growth history, good foreign policy history, gets no support. His CFR issue is a non issue to me. I have personally been to meetings where known CFR members have spoken. I dont wear tinfoil :)
Obama: utter disappointment imo. Couldnt agree more with you AX, a true corporatist

For me Huntsman is #1 right now (about as likely as Paul getting the nod), Romney is a distant 2nd
 
Romney should be on that religious fanatic list of yours. Huntsman is also a Mormon, but Im not sure if he is a fanatic.

I gotta admit though, Perry is probably on top of that list.
 
ax1 said:
Romney should be on that religious fanatic list of yours. Huntsman is also a Mormon, but Im not sure if he is a fanatic.

I gotta admit though, Perry is probably on top of that list.
Click to expand...

Romney does not portray himself like a fanatic, however, you could be right

Huntsman has come out and said I am spiritual not religious.

Perry is frightening. The rain prayer sealed it for me. Regardless of how inept he looks in debates
 
lol that's a great pic.

I feel bad for the GOP right now. No good contenders at all, with far too much influence being allowed from the extremist (and minority) TP
 
AE14 said:
Now we are talking. :lol:

In all seriousness she is a loon
Click to expand...

My dream election would be

Republicans - Bachman/Palin
Democrats - Biden (for president)/Al Sharpton
Independents - Trump/Vince McMahon
 
ax1 said:
My dream election would be

Republicans - Bachman/Palin
Democrats - Biden (for president)/Al Sharpton
Independents - Trump/Vince McMahon
Click to expand...

are you saying that would be your dream because every american voter would boycott the polls?
 
EasyEJL said:
are you saying that would be your dream because every american voter would boycott the polls?
Click to expand...

No..I love watching letterman and leno, so that would give me something more entertaining to watch on television.
 
the funniest thing about those pics is that each of the presidential candidates you mention really is crazy enough to pick the mentioned vps
 
EasyEJL said:
nah, paul isn't funny when he's talking. Those other 6 are all gaffe factories walking around.
Click to expand...

E, you cant be serious. Not funny? Have you listened to him? Yikes

Add in Ventura and the tinfoil hat brigade, and watch out
 
AE14 said:
E, you cant be serious. Not funny? Have you listened to him? Yikes

Add in Ventura and the tinfoil hat brigade, and watch out
Click to expand...

He's serious, consistent and accurate in what he says, its just not as funny as the crazy off the wall crap all those others say. Ventura, sure.
 
EasyEJL said:
He's serious, consistent and accurate in what he says, its just not as funny as the crazy off the wall crap all those others say. Ventura, sure.
Click to expand...

Id love to see a Libertarian or especially Independent Paul/Ventura ticket. Ventura would provide some comic material for the late night talk show hosts (although Im not stating Ventura is out there by that), and if you think about it...it would protect Ron Paul's life.
 
EasyEJL said:
He's serious, consistent and accurate in what he says, its just not as funny as the crazy off the wall crap all those others say. Ventura, sure.
Click to expand...

Accurate? Wow. His foreign policy is short sighted and naive at best.

Serious and consistent I will agree with. What his cult followers don't realize is that they kill his message.
 
AE14 said:
Accurate? Wow. His foreign policy is short sighted and naive at best.

Serious and consistent I will agree with. What his cult followers don't realize is that they kill his message.
Click to expand...

I dunno, how much money have we spent and how many US servicemen's lives have we lost since Vietnam being in places where the residents of the countries didn't want us there? And what positive things did it bring to the US? He said that after 9/11 he would have gone in, done a quick surgical strike on the taliban, and got out. I'm not sure how naive that is, seems like its what we should have done, instead of the $4 trillion we've spent there.
 
EasyEJL said:
I dunno, how much money have we spent and how many US servicemen's lives have we lost since Vietnam being in places where the residents of the countries didn't want us there? And what positive things did it bring to the US? He said that after 9/11 he would have gone in, done a quick surgical strike on the taliban, and got out. I'm not sure how naive that is, seems like its what we should have done, instead of the $4 trillion we've spent there.
Click to expand...

Can we start by bringing home our troops from WWII? Is it safe to leave yet?
 
omni said:
Politics is a game about winning. Who stands a chance against Obama? I like a lot of the candidates answers and solutions but, even if I like the person, I want Obama out and I only see one person who can beat him. Why spend so much time and money on who will just lose? I believe Herman Cain is the only one who can beat Obama. I like Cain and his idea's. He's a business man and more in touch with most Americans, IMHO.
94% of Black voters voted for Obama. If it were 85% I wouldn't believe they voted according to race but they did. Obama's parents weren't Americans. His mom wasn't from America. His Dad was from Kenya. His value's aren't American.

Herman Cain is Born and raised in America with the same cultural heritage as most of the Black AND White population. Obama is the opposite. Maybe Cain can teach people that the Republican party is not the "white" party, but the party for equality.

Color aside, I like what he stands for and he isn't a career politician.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree.

My parents aren't from America. They are both immigrants. I was born in Chicago. I think we should close the borders. I support the DREAM Act, but I don't think we should allow family of citizens to come over for no other reason than they are family. So based on that information, where would you place my values?

On the other hand, I think -black- people forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and that Republicans at their outset were against slavery. I would love to see the Repubs get behind someone sooner rather than later, but then again I'd love to see a politician that doesn't play politics.

:Eats popcorn. Passes to next guy.:
 
omni said:
Politics is a game about winning. Who stands a chance against Obama? I like a lot of the candidates answers and solutions but, even if I like the person, I want Obama out and I only see one person who can beat him. Why spend so much time and money on who will just lose? I believe Herman Cain is the only one who can beat Obama. I like Cain and his idea's. He's a business man and more in touch with most Americans, IMHO.
94% of Black voters voted for Obama. If it were 85% I wouldn't believe they voted according to race but they did. Obama's parents weren't Americans. His mom wasn't from America. His Dad was from Kenya. His value's aren't American.

Herman Cain is Born and raised in America with the same cultural heritage as most of the Black AND White population. Obama is the opposite. Maybe Cain can teach people that the Republican party is not the "white" party, but the party for equality.

Color aside, I like what he stands for and he isn't a career politician.
Click to expand...

I agree and disagree.

My parents aren't from America. They are both immigrants. I was born in Chicago. I think we should close the borders. I support the DREAM Act, but I don't think we should allow family of citizens to come over for no other reason than they are family. So based on that information, where would you place my values?

On the other hand, I think -black- people forget that Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and that Republicans at their outset were against slavery. I would love to see the Repubs get behind someone sooner rather than later, but then again I'd love to see a politician that doesn't play politics.

:Eats popcorn. Passes to next guy.:
 
Wow. Okay, I've just read all 13 pages of this thread...

1) I'm nowhere near educated enough to have a relevant point.

2) Either we're all going to die, or we'll be okay. I don't know.

3) I enjoy everyone's viewpoints. Much more interesting than my own.

4) I need to study more Ron Paul.

5) Only 12 more posts till I can put up links. Hooray!
 
^ #4 is dfeeintatly something you need to do. or just cut ur writsts and bleed out in a bathtub of cold water bcuz thats exactly whats gonna happen to america if hes not elected
 
Ron Paul no matter how much sense he may make has NO SHOT at getting into the White house. His message isn't the one the "powers that be" want in focus. I for one have reluctantly been dragged to the realization that what we want DOES NOT MATTER, at this point, I'm for nobody
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top