Santorum will not be getting my vote... (Democrats, Republican, conservative)

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

You're welcome, and I agree with everything you just said.
And i want to add that this is not really a pro/anti Paul argument that I am trying to make. It is an ideological argument. If Santorum wants to remove the idea of freedom, liberty and small government from the republican platform, he is going to lose a lot of voters. As much as Obama is a failure as a president, I would rather see him in office for 4 more years than to see the republican party's platform take a turn in the wrong direction until irreparable damage is done. If the differences between a D and an R is intrusion vs freedom, the GOP is my party. If the difference between a D and an R is over WHICH freedoms to curtail, then both parties have lost me.

If Obama gets in again the republican platform in 2016 will be the least of your problems. There will never be another conservative president. The voters getting "freebies" from the government will be more than those voters paying and will guarantee the democrats victory.

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by muleskinner

Reagan won the cold war????? Uhhhh...I really hope you are not a history teacher

Read and learn grasshopper.
President Ronald Reagan: Winning the Cold War

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD

As some people know, I am a Paul supporter and have been since 2007. That said, in the general election I am for "anyone but Obama.". Or at least I WAS. I never liked Santorum's brand of republicanism that espouses interfering in people's private lives, and spending like a democrat, but I WAS willing to vote for him against Obama as the lesser of two evils. That was yesterday. Today I believe him to be equal in his evilness. If he wins the nomination, I cannot pull the lever for him in good conscience. I guess I will have to vote for some third party candidate. He just lost the vote of the libertarians and many independents. How could he be so stupid? "I want to strongly fight Libertarian influence in the republican party.". Rick Santorum



.
.
.
.

I have to admit that this position by Santorum is alarming. But to consider not voting for the republican against Obama is the worst option.

[Hot_Handz]

Originally Posted by TheFix

It was Ronald Reagan who first threw red meat to evangelical Christians, luring them into the party, so you can blame him if you do not like the GOP's strong social and religious conservatism.

And Reagan--exactly like Rick Santorum--was a big government spender and was the first president in modern US history who first gave us these extraordinarily large federal government deficits. It took a Democratic president--Bill Clinton--to eventually get us back into the black, largely by cutting defense spending.

So your argument against Santorum--and then quoting Reagan--makes no logical sense.

Clintons "surplus" was a myth.......


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

[rikoshaprl]

Originally Posted by Hot_Handz

Clintons "surplus" was a myth.......


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

The link didn't work. But Clinton's surplus was caused by the end of the Cold War and the decrease in defense spending because of it. There were cuts in spending by a Republican Congress and the dot com bubble brought in much tax revenue but popped just before Bush took office. Funny, I don't recall Bush blaming anyone for 3 years about that.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by TheFix

It took a Democratic president--Bill Clinton--to eventually get us back into the black, largely by cutting defense spending.

????

1) Clinton said that he opposed a balanced budget during the 1994 midterm election.

2) It was the Republican Contract With America that sought to balance the budget and won them control of both houses of congress in 1994.

3) Clinton even as late as February of 1995 said that balancing the budget was not a priority even though congress was voted into office to do that.

4) There was never an actual surplus...notice how the national debt increased every year...it is called a budgeting gimmick...spending $$$ that is suppose to be set aside for the future now and ignoring that in the numbers.

[TXboomerang]

I think many people are missing the bigger picture of this election. Ron Paul is the obvious choice for libertarian leaning Republicans. If he isn't on the ticket, libertarianism is not on the ticket IN ANY WAY. I am not sure what Ron Paul will do, as I believe he knows he can use the momentum of this movement to make a greater change than just 2012. Obviously, winning the Republican nomination would be the top goal. If he doesn't win, the movement is still very much alive, and Ron Paul will be in the driver seat of where that energy goes, but only for a short time. He must decide what is best to empower the movement if he does not get the nomination.
Options:
Throw his support behind Gary Johnson, and maybe even join his ticket as VP on the Libertarian ticket. This would be huge and would very likely lead to them easily getting 5% of the vote in the general election. Most say "big deal, they lose badly and cause Obama to get reelected". That is missing the point. Most libertarians do not see Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney as being fiscally conservative or being in support of individual liberties. 5% means they are entitled to the matching funding in the 2016 election as well as much easier ballot access which means they don't spend campaign money just getting on the ballot. This could be a game changer with the GOP fractured and with no identity, and would provide a viable 3rd party if enough people would stop automatically believing the 2 party enforcement pundits who write articles and speak on the news shows and regularly dismiss and discourage the idea of anyone actually voting for the person they most want to win. A 3rd party isn't easy, but the world is changing, especially the way we get the news, organize campaigns, and move through the politcal process. The time is right for a 3rd party option, and the party that can make the strongest case for its viability will be that 3rd party.

The other option is to funnel the energy of his movement behind his son and try to organize a Rand Paul candidacy or at the very least work hard to find a strong conservative candidate who will fight for the same principles that he has to run for president. I feel this is the most likely scenario if RP doesnt' win the nomination.

That being said, its REALLY hard to tell what he wants to do and I do believe he is fully absorbed with the current contest and not thinking about what happens if he doesn't win. So I don't think a decision has been made.

[Frozenyo]

http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s320x320/405859_360582290636685_196601040368145_1374418_968 994128_n.jpg (broken link)

[silas777]

Originally Posted by TXboomerang

I think many people are missing the bigger picture of this election. Ron Paul is the obvious choice for libertarian leaning Republicans. If he isn't on the ticket, libertarianism is not on the ticket IN ANY WAY. I am not sure what Ron Paul will do, as I believe he knows he can use the momentum of this movement to make a greater change than just 2012. Obviously, winning the Republican nomination would be the top goal. If he doesn't win, the movement is still very much alive, and Ron Paul will be in the driver seat of where that energy goes, but only for a short time. He must decide what is best to empower the movement if he does not get the nomination.
Options:
Throw his support behind Gary Johnson, and maybe even join his ticket as VP on the Libertarian ticket. This would be huge and would very likely lead to them easily getting 5% of the vote in the general election. Most say "big deal, they lose badly and cause Obama to get reelected". That is missing the point. Most libertarians do not see Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney as being fiscally conservative or being in support of individual liberties. 5% means they are entitled to the matching funding in the 2016 election as well as much easier ballot access which means they don't spend campaign money just getting on the ballot. This could be a game changer with the GOP fractured and with no identity, and would provide a viable 3rd party if enough people would stop automatically believing the 2 party enforcement pundits who write articles and speak on the news shows and regularly dismiss and discourage the idea of anyone actually voting for the person they most want to win. A 3rd party isn't easy, but the world is changing, especially the way we get the news, organize campaigns, and move through the politcal process. The time is right for a 3rd party option, and the party that can make the strongest case for its viability will be that 3rd party.

The other option is to funnel the energy of his movement behind his son and try to organize a Rand Paul candidacy or at the very least work hard to find a strong conservative candidate who will fight for the same principles that he has to run for president. I feel this is the most likely scenario if RP doesnt' win the nomination.

That being said, its REALLY hard to tell what he wants to do and I do believe he is fully absorbed with the current contest and not thinking about what happens if he doesn't win. So I don't think a decision has been made.

Sorry but 3/4 of your post is borderline delusional..........you ever wonder why your hero ronpaul is a republican? When he doesnt get the nomination Paul will do the same thing he does every other 4 years go back to the congress and look forward to running again in 2016. Rand Paul would indeed be a better candidate in 4 years as a Republican.

[michiganmoon]

Originally Posted by TXboomerang

I think many people are missing the bigger picture of this election. Ron Paul is the obvious choice for libertarian leaning Republicans. If he isn't on the ticket, libertarianism is not on the ticket IN ANY WAY. I am not sure what Ron Paul will do, as I believe he knows he can use the momentum of this movement to make a greater change than just 2012. Obviously, winning the Republican nomination would be the top goal. If he doesn't win, the movement is still very much alive, and Ron Paul will be in the driver seat of where that energy goes, but only for a short time. He must decide what is best to empower the movement if he does not get the nomination.
Options:
Throw his support behind Gary Johnson, and maybe even join his ticket as VP on the Libertarian ticket. This would be huge and would very likely lead to them easily getting 5% of the vote in the general election. Most say "big deal, they lose badly and cause Obama to get reelected". That is missing the point. Most libertarians do not see Santorum, Gingrich, or Romney as being fiscally conservative or being in support of individual liberties. 5% means they are entitled to the matching funding in the 2016 election as well as much easier ballot access which means they don't spend campaign money just getting on the ballot. This could be a game changer with the GOP fractured and with no identity, and would provide a viable 3rd party if enough people would stop automatically believing the 2 party enforcement pundits who write articles and speak on the news shows and regularly dismiss and discourage the idea of anyone actually voting for the person they most want to win. A 3rd party isn't easy, but the world is changing, especially the way we get the news, organize campaigns, and move through the politcal process. The time is right for a 3rd party option, and the party that can make the strongest case for its viability will be that 3rd party.

The other option is to funnel the energy of his movement behind his son and try to organize a Rand Paul candidacy or at the very least work hard to find a strong conservative candidate who will fight for the same principles that he has to run for president. I feel this is the most likely scenario if RP doesnt' win the nomination.

That being said, its REALLY hard to tell what he wants to do and I do believe he is fully absorbed with the current contest and not thinking about what happens if he doesn't win. So I don't think a decision has been made.

For argument's sake....let's say Romney wins. I think he would go for Marco Rubio as his VP, but would you be placated by Ron Paul (or his son) as the VP pick? The VP is usually a useless position, but can fast track someone's career to the top (perhaps why Rand Paul would make a better VP than his father).