I'm voting Obama

Post Reply New Topic

Unless something really strange happens I'm pretty certain that we're looking at Romney vs. Obama. My vote would be by extension for Romney, the bad with the good being that there are signs that congresses would graft a lot of very half-fast mediocre legislation because he has a way of bringing both sides of the isle together *too* well and essentially no one gets what they want. At the same time though would he run us into super-deficits? I doubt it.

I think it's actually going to be Gingrich vs. Obama, because Romney chickened out on debating Gingrich 1 on 1.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the most likely prick Obama will be running against, presently. At least he ain't Perry. Vlech. Romney strikes me as more moderate, but his chimerical tendencies are troubling.

You think? I got the impression people have been shying away from Newt based on a tendency to go off the reservation at the worst times. Regardless I'd take either over what we have at present.

Debate is a sport. Being a good debater proves one has the gift of gab. It does not prove a thing about leadership or soundness of principles.

ruveyn

If Romney is going to chicken out on debating Gingrich, will he also chicken out on debating Obama?

i greatly disagree with your opinion, take it from a Jeffersonian Democratic Republican Libertarian like me, what America needs is a President who is a Strict Constitutionalist, America is only America in name and territory and its disappointing how far we have fallen America was made to let the people have the most power yet the Federal government always interprets our beloved Constitution to allow them to rule our lives completely, we have NO Self Ownership anymore and that is SUPPOSED to be guaranteed to us because the government has absolutely NO right to take control of us in the way that they have that's why i support Ron Paul, his political beliefs have always been consistent with the US Constitution and the Forefathers vision of America

thats why i would love to be President because my goal would be to reduce the size of the evergrowing Federal government i would have no other agenda than to make everyone as free as possible while still maintaining safety.

Self Ownership is the freedom we need, i believe in America you should have the right to do ANYTHING you want to yourself as long as no one else's freedoms are infringed upon which was the goal of America since the beginning, The Land of The Free, Thomas Jefferson is my hero, and idol

What difference does it make?

ruveyn

Ron Paul is a total moron when it comes to foreign policy.

It comes down to Supreme Court picks, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are both likely to pick strict Constitutionalist Judges. Santorum's picks would likely be strict constitutionalists for the most part as would Perry's and Bachmann's. Only two I'd worry about are Mittens and Huntsman.

I will give credit that Ron Paul has a lot of things that make sense domestically, but his isolationist stance is quite frankly totally insane.

One thing we need is a balanced budget amendment, that's something that most Republican Candidates for President support and would go a long way to limit government.

@dox47
I guess I don't think much of your views (mod edit)

@inuyasha
Ron Paul is still the better choice, he is the only candidate who is striving to return the freedom stolen from us, i have liked Ron Paul throughout his entire political career because he has always looked out for whats in the peoples best interest. and regarding foreign policy, is it any of our business? maybe if we didn't put our nose into everyone else's business then we could focus on America's needs more. our Forefathers intended America to be neutral, Switzerland best exemplifies how America should be with foreign policy, thats why every major international conference is in Switzerland, thats what Geneva is famous for(Geneva Conventions), well that and swiss bank accounts

I've payed attention to Ron Paul's political career too, and the's not the man you think he is.

Fact is Ron Paul's ad directed towards Newt Gingrich shows that Ron Paul will say anything to get elected, and I don't trust Mittens for that reason, and I don't trust Ron Paul for that reason.

Gingrich is every bit as much of a tactician. He's courting the evangelical vote pretty heavily, but his actual values really aren't much to speak of, in practice. The main reason I haven't attacked him for his anti-gay crap is that I know he's insincere. The actual mindset he has toward queers is one of contemptuous indifference, I return him the same in equal volume. Gingrich is an annoying blabbermouth, but I wouldn't move to another country over him.

In fact, he represents the majority of GOP voters better than just about anybody. No matter what his family history is, he projects an offensive sense of "nouveau," he speaks highly of "values" but shows himself to be a hypocrite, and he's generally a jerk. No matter how much I dislike GOP people, they deserve representation in our democracy as much as anybody who abides by our laws and doesn't conspire with our enemies.

Ahh, unambiguous personal insults from people who's opinions I don't respect are so refreshing, especially when they obviously care so much about me. I'm just going to bask here for a moment, nobody mind me.

I blew you out because I found it extremely satisfying to do so.

As far as your respect:

I just enjoy being called amoral by someone who wants to round up their political opponents and murder them and their children, or was it just put them in camps? I don't suppose the finer points matter all that much, the moral/sane event horizon is certainly clear enough. I find that being denounced by the deplorable is usually both satisfying and credibility enhancing, so have at it.

Well, I've mellowed out lately, and I would be satisfied with keeping the Republicans in detention centers, largely for their own safety.

Dox, you are really not giving anyone present, especially me, new information by pointing out that I'm temperamental, offensive and belligerent. The people who like me say these things about my character. If they didn't, they wouldn't be my friends because would be either stupid or lying to me. The amantadine and the fish oil help contain it, though.

Look, I lost my patience, and I went into a rant. If it means anything, it's not you. I have exams coming up, and I'm stressed. However, I clearly don't owe you any apology for it, since you have told me in fairly crisp English that it didn't faze you. Being thick-skinned is a commendable trait from my point of view, so good for you.

The way I see it, though, you purposely antagonized me here when I was trying for all the world to be civil with you. My first reply to you contained not a single belligerent statement, in spite of the fact that I was responding to a snide and trollish remark. Throughout our conversation, I did have lapses, but I feel that I put an extra effort into trying to make something of this discussion.

If you want to have a serious discussion on this topic, let me know. You haven't shown a willingness to do that here. All you've done here so far is deliberately bait someone whom you knew had an anger problem, and you probably put in a complaint when you got what you were looking for. What a waste.