Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

Thanks for you thoughtful input.

Because you've offered so much yourself?

Why should I have to defend who I'm voting for? Should everyone that posts in this thread or this forum do so? All I'm doing is posting a lot of predictions on the Republican primary, I'm not here to debate about who is better for the country or the economy or whatever else.

Because you've offered so much yourself?

Why should I have to defend who I'm voting for? Should everyone that posts in this thread or this forum do so? All I'm doing is posting a lot of predictions on the Republican primary, I'm not here to debate about who is better for the country or the economy or whatever else.

Then lets take it to another thread.

Then lets take it to another thread.

Fight!!! Fight!!!

Coffee, you need to take 10% off liberal light and add 10% to Santorum, and I think you may be about right.

If Santorum wins New Hampshire and then SC, is Romney finished?

Then lets take it to another thread.

Give me your reasons for wanting to keep Obama in office for another term as President.

Give me your reasons for thinking any of the possible republican candidates deserve to be president. And if you say Herman Cain should be in the mix I'll just assume you are joking.

Edited January 4, 2012 by mattmartin817

Right now and in the past 4 years I honestly don't think any president regardless of party would have been able to make the country happy and be in prosperity. Whoever the next president is whether its Obama or not will have his hands full and I bet in 4 years we'll probably be talking the same things we're talking about now.

Fight!!! Fight!!!

Coffee, you need to take 10% off liberal light and add 10% to Santorum, and I think you may be about right.

Disagree. New Hampshirens (wtf is the name for those people?) won't go for a guy like Santorum. If Huntsman wasn't putting so much time and effort into New Hampshire then Romney might be polling over 50%. And Perry apparently isn't backing off, so that changes the numbers a tad.

If Santorum wins New Hampshire and then SC, is Romney finished?

I would think only an epic Romney collapse would allow that to happen, so yes it would definitely be the end.

Give me your reasons for thinking any of the possible republican candidates deserve to be president. And if you say Herman Cain should be in the mix I'll just assume you are joking.

Well, at least when Ron Paul has said he is going to cut the federal budget by 1 trillion dollars it isn't followed by "over the next 10 years." Federal spending in this country is out of control.

I'm not saying he is who I would necessarily vote for but the federal budget and deficit are big concerns of mine. If it is not part of the discussion this time around our political leaders are out of touch with reality.

We need a wrench thrown into this machine before it goes even more out of control, and Paul is just crazy enough to do it. With that I think he also would be unselfish enough to push for term limits. But his foreign policy is all over the place.

Santorum needs to talk more like that.

I think if Romney doesn't win over 50 percent of NH like every political pundit has said he would the past week then it's truly game on.

We shall see.

Rick

Well, at least when Ron Paul has said he is going to cut the federal budget by 1 trillion dollars it isn't followed by "over the next 10 years." Federal spending in this country is out of control.

I'm not saying he is who I would necessarily vote for but the federal budget and deficit are big concerns of mine. If it is not part of the discussion this time around our political leaders are out of touch with reality.

But that's kind of how it works. Cutting the budget by that much takes a little time, you can't do it all at once or it will be way to much of a shock to the system. I don't agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says but I think he does realize it can't be done over night.

I agree with you, Federal spending is out of control...but it's been that way for a lot longer than the past 3 years. It's was that way the previous 8 (and before that) before Obama took office. It's been that way since we decided we needed such a ridiculously large defense budget, it's that way due to the fact we need to give Israel (a developed nation, with a ridiculously awesome military) a ton of money, then there's those two wars that lasted way longer than they should have etc etc.

Yes Obama has spent a lot money, but a pretty large portion of that money has been spent to get us out of problems created by previous administrations.

But that's kind of how it works. Cutting the budget by that much takes a little time, you can't do it all at once or it will be way to much of a shock to the system. I don't agree with a lot of what Ron Paul says but I think he does realize it can't be done over night.

I agree with you, Federal spending is out of control...but it's been that way for a lot longer than the past 3 years. It's was that way the previous 8 (and before that) before Obama took office. It's been that way since we decided we needed such a ridiculously large defense budget, it's that way due to the fact we need to give Israel (a developed nation, with a ridiculously awesome military) a ton of money, then there's those two wars that lasted way longer than they should have etc etc.

Yes Obama has spent a lot money, but a pretty large portion of that money has been spent to get us out of problems created by previous administrations.

Don't bother dude, you're talking to brick walls. These people think that huge tax cuts didn't contribute to the deficit.

Don't bother dude, you're talking to brick walls. These people think that huge tax cuts didn't contribute to the deficit.

And rolling back the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 for only a small group of high income individuals won't exactly make the Federal Government bring in the 1.5 trillion needed to shore up the deficit.

Give me your reasons for thinking any of the possible republican candidates deserve to be president. And if you say Herman Cain should be in the mix I'll just assume you are joking.

The socialization of health care is reasonenough to vote for the republican party. Throw terrible spending habits (yes, worse than republicans) of the democrats is another reason.

Liberal democrats shouldn't vote for President Obama because he lied to them on a number of issues. But liberal democrats ain't votin for no republicans

Here is some of what Paul is fighting against. Remember, I said he was crazy.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-newsletter-iowa-caucus-republican

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/ron-paul-lack-of-oversight-on-newsletters-was-human-flaw/

Rick

The socialization of health care is reasonenough to vote for the republican party.

This is what I mean by brick walls.

UNT90 is describing it as "socialized", yet Obamacare didn't even include a public option for buying health care coverage. The public option was a compromise that was suggested by Republicans in the early 90's as an answer to Hillarycare. Republicans. In the early 1990's. Obamacare doesn't even go that far.

We have two parties:

The Democrats which are the centrist party, and the Republicans which are the right/far-right party.

The socialization of health care is reasonenough to vote for the republican party. Throw terrible spending habits (yes, worse than republicans) of the democrats is another reason.

Liberal democrats shouldn't vote for President Obama because he lied to them on a number of issues. But liberal democrats ain't votin for no republicans

I'd vote for a republican, if that republican was John Huntsman.

We have two parties:

The Democrats which are the centrist party, and the Republicans which are the right/far-right party.

I'd hate to see where on the spectrum you would place the old Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties.

I'd hate to see where on the spectrum you would place the old Democratic-Republican and Federalist parties.

I don't know, its presently not the late 18th century.

This is what I mean by brick walls.

UNT90 is describing it as "socialized", yet Obamacare didn't even include a public option for buying health care coverage. The public option was a compromise that was suggested by Republicans in the early 90's as an answer to Hillarycare. Republicans. In the early 1990's. Obamacare doesn't even go that far.

We have two parties:

The Democrats which are the centrist party, and the Republicans which are the right/far-right party.

Hahahahahahahaha

For anyone needing the definition of human nature, just read the above post.

Everyone wants to think the way they think is the most popular way of thinking.

Too bad survey after survey shows the majority of America is conservative.

This is probably the most unintentionally funny thing you have ever posted on the topic of politics, and that is saying a lot

I'd vote for a republican, if that republican was John Huntsman.

Might as well just vote democrat.

I don't know, its presently not the late 18th century.

It all has to do with how you view the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. While time might change the practical details of implementing a political philosophy, why would time necessarily change the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government?

Everyone wants to think the way they think is the most popular way of thinking.

VS

Too bad survey after survey shows the majority of America is conservative.

???

Center-right as comparable on a world stage, but a lot of developed countries are further to the left than any Democrat in America. Conservatives in Great Britain, for instance, would be seen as too far left to be electable here.

It all has to do with how you view the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. While time might change the practical details of implementing a political philosophy, why would time necessarily change the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government?

Because it needs to in order to line up with Coffee's thought process? ;-)

It all has to do with how you view the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. While time might change the practical details of implementing a political philosophy, why would time necessarily change the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government?

Any time I hear people bring up the constitution and the role of government I generally just dismiss them as absolutists. I mean when the Constitution was written having an anti-slavery view was seen as liberal or even extremist. In 1910 it was "progressive" to want women's suffrage. To try and identify where the framers and politicians of that era fit on a modern day political scale would just be impractical.

It all has to do with how you view the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government. While time might change the practical details of implementing a political philosophy, why would time necessarily change the meaning of the Constitution and the role of government?

You have a point but I don't think the constitution itself changes. The role of government always changes...that is why over time new laws come into place, or laws will change, etc etc etc. In essence all of this is the role of government in some sort of capacity. The government has maintained the same constitution wise but the role of them have always fluctuated over the years and as time passes I think it is only obvious that the way things are run can and should evolve. If things did not evolve we would still be living like people did since the beginning of time and had the same mindsets. This is why I always say that the world in general today is not the same as it was say 50, 100, 500, 1000 yrs ago etc.