Git Sum Presidentin' (Republican primaries)

UNTFan23 · January 4, 2012

Give me a million dollars.

Shouldn't you be giving something like 40% of that million dollars to the federal government and keeping the other 600k? Remember, you gotta pay your fair share.

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

DeepGreen · January 4, 2012

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.

UNT90 · January 4, 2012

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?

MeanGreenTexan · January 4, 2012

Then lets take it to another thread.

mattmartin817 · January 4, 2012

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

Green Mean · January 4, 2012

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.

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

UNTFan23 · January 4, 2012

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.

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2012

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

mattmartin817 · January 4, 2012

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.

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

UNTFan23 · January 4, 2012

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.

UNT90 · January 4, 2012

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

FirefightnRick · January 4, 2012

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

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

mattmartin817 · January 4, 2012

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.

Mean Green 93-98 · January 4, 2012

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.

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

UNT90 · January 4, 2012

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

UNT90 · January 4, 2012

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

Might as well just vote democrat.

Mean Green 93-98 · January 4, 2012

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?

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.

UNT90 · January 4, 2012

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? ;-)

Coffee and TV · January 4, 2012

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.