U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Felya]

my biggest problem was with him claiming that the US "has been at war with Islam on and off the last 200 years".

Why is that?

---------- Post added 2012-02-02 at 08:52 PM ----------

a war is "A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state." while a "military operation is activity by a military or naval force" the dif is a military operation isnt against a nation or a state it can be used to describe armed conflict against a group not a state

So the difference is the ruling party of where the military action is occurring, are siding with us on the war? All military action is war, it's just a fairly new term to make sound like prettier. We are not at war with Pakistan, we just regularly bomb them as part of a military action... looks like war, smells like war, has the same effect as war... must be a duck...

[Deleted]

Why is that?

Because the US has not been at war with Islam...

[Felya]

Because the US has not been at war with Islam...

I'm fairly certain he meant the Barbary Wars as a counter to us meddling in the middle east was due to Israel.

[Grimbold21]

As an European i simply don't understand people from the US disliking Paul. He claims to end your warmongering for pity's sake.

[Sunseeker]

As an European i simply don't understand people from the US disliking Paul. He claims to end your warmongering for pity's sake.

And given the track record for American politicians doing what they CLAIM, it's a great idea to go for this right?

[Deleted]

And given the track record for American politicians doing what they CLAIM, it's a great idea to go for this right?

I guess you're not voting then? Doesn't matter who you vote cause they won't do it anyway.

[Grimbold21]

And given the track record for American politicians doing what they CLAIM, it's a great idea to go for this right?

Worked out pretty well for Obama

[Sunseeker]

I guess you're not voting then? Doesn't matter who you vote cause they won't do it anyway.

I can vote based on both what they claim they'll do and what they've done in their respective positions.

Based on that data, not a single one of the Republican candidates appeals to me. Romney is the only realistic candidate who has any sort of chance in the electorate as a whole. Unfortunately for Romney, he's basically an Obama in a red blanket, which means people are more likely to vote for the status quo than bother with a new guy who is just like the old guy.

[Deleted]

I can vote based on both what they claim they'll do and what they've done in their respective positions.

Ok, but Paul has always been against nation building and unnecessary wars, so what was the point of your post to Grimbold then?

[Mamado]

It took me a long time to get behind any of the Republican candidates this time even though I am a conservative and want nothing more than to have President Obama out of office.

Ron Paul has some good ideas- some crazy ones. A local radio personality said it best: When it comes to Paul, everyone follows the 80/20 rule. 80% of his policies are absolutely perfect, 20% of them are so crazy you couldn't ever vote for the man. I hate calling anyone 'unelectable', but if there's anyone out there who makes so many voters just plain unable to vote for him, it's Paul.

Santorum has made some excellent points during the race. My favorite is a speech he made concerning his interpretation of the constitution in opposition to Ron Paul's interpretation. Unfortunately, he just seems too eager to continue the warmongering for my tastes. And I don't want moral issues legislated from the federal government. Leave that to the states. The feds shouldn't say a word about marriage, abortion (goodbye, Roe Vs. Wade!) or anything like it. Let the states decide.

Gingrich can't be honest about his time as speaker of the house. Sure, he balanced the budget. But he raided other funds to do so. And he didn't do it all four years like he claimed. And the economy had a lot to do with the Internet, not him. And on and on. He says it like he can take all the credit, and he just can't. Add in his infidelity, and eew. Just eew. Any man who will cheat on two wives and leave them when they are sick deserves nothing but contempt.

That leaves Romney- the man who might be anything from the savior of the republican party to a socialist in Republican clothing. I had a hard time with him and his positions. However, I do support him over any other candidate, due fully because of the interview he gave to the Des Moines Register (link below). Listen to him talk about how he worked in Massachusetts. And listen to how Obama, Bush, Clinton- and every other president talks about the opposing party. Romney worked with them. Found out behind closed doors where political grandstanding was gone what really mattered and made sure that he got the best deal that he could get from them. Right now politics is so broken because both sides hold every single issue hostage. Romney didn't have to do that.

I don't like him on every issue. But at least he'll solve the gridlock and get things moving again.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/Vid...oines-Register

[Deleted]

Explains in part why Romney won.

[Catta]

Explains in part why Romney won.

poor Ron Paul... I find it so hilarious that people will watch "news" that so blatantly ignore one of the runners when theres only 4 people actually running...

[Wells]

How much time do you think the media should be devoting to 4th place finishers?

Their job is to report the news. Ron Paul is not the news.

[Deleted]

How much time do you think the media should be devoting to 4th place finishers?

Their job is to report the news. Ron Paul is not the news.

You think Santorum was news in Florida? As newsworthy as Gingrich? 20x more newsworthy than Paul?

C'mon.

[Asatru]

How much time do you think the media should be devoting to 4th place finishers?

Their job is to report the news. Ron Paul is not the news.

Ron Paul should be the news. Guess he's not "controversial" enough for ratings.

[Catta]

How much time do you think the media should be devoting to 4th place finishers?

Their job is to report the news. Ron Paul is not the news.

the media is partly why he is in 4th place... He IS getting pushed out of the picture... There are only 4 runners... He should atleast have 15-20 % together with Santorum while the 2 others are the frontrunners and get a little more

[Wells]

Ron Paul should be the news. Guess he's not "controversial" enough for ratings.

I think the word you're looking for here is popular, not controversial.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 12:37 AM ----------

the media is partly why he is in 4th place... He IS getting pushed out of the picture... There are only 4 runners... He should atleast have 15-20 % together with Santorum while the 2 others are the frontrunners and get a little more

What are you basing the "should have" on?

[Catta]

I think the word you're looking for here is popular, not controversial.

---------- Post added 2012-02-03 at 12:37 AM ----------



What are you basing the "should have" on?

objectivity of importance for equal runners for the primary


ron paul has half of santorums votes but a 1/20th of his media attention

[Malcho]

There are young people here, no doubt, who have not yet felt how it is to have 8-12 years pissed away as no-brainer advancements are held back by some old men in a building far away, squabbling in a form of political sport with common men as chips, atrocious attacks against civil liberties are witnessed, and opportunities for generations to come are stripped.

They haven't waited long enough to be tired of waiting, and it's painful to witness. They don't know how they are being had by this theater of politicians. This system of farces.

How many more centuries will it take? When will the young look around and see how insane and ill the whole thing is and act?

[Dacien]

I hope Romney can campaign shrewdly and pull out a victory. It wouldn't hurt if Obama has some sort of scandal in the next few months.