Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Both have negative baggage, both have a lot of experience and are qualified.
Newt would demand "90 minute" debates and it would be really interesting to watch them..
If it came down to them, who would you vote for?..
The (mis)presentations of the non-choices just keep getting worse.
Do you suppose Ron Paul has the won-tons to switch independent (and not the ding-bat L's either) when the top end CorpRat R's shut him down?
I don't think he may have to switch for the following reasons. If I'm wrong he will switch after being in the spotlight and attending republican debates, so win win
Well despite how little mainstream attention Paul gets, I have to look at a few practical things here.
Christian conservatives who make up a large portion of the Republican voting base can't be too pleased with their top choices. Romney they shriek in horror over, Giuliani stands about as much chance of gathering the social conservative vote as Ahmadinejad, and Thompson (the best pick of the three) is still having to shrug off his lobbying for pro-choice organization as a lobbyist. With the recent article and growing voice of people like Dobson, the social conservatives are starting to look towards Ron Paul
Now as far as the moderate conservatives, indie's, libertarians, greens, constitutionalist, it is a no brainer, Ron Paul all the way.
Ultimately the republicans have to face the fact that America in general is in a large majority to get out of Iraq and is on the front of nearly everyones mind. Currently some 70% of Americans wants some form of withdraw or disengagement from Iraq and no pro-war republican candidate will ever win the general election facing this situation. This leaves them a choice, keep touting the top front runners and have them flip flop some of their ideals in order to better fit the majority mindset and lose more of their own base or simply back Ron Paul.
Now they may disagree with Ron Paul and many do for a variety of reasons but in essence, Ron Paul is seen by many as the best overall candidate as he is well versed in the core issues of our current thinking. I think at this point, even people who disagree with various aspects of what he states are willing to vote for someone who at the very least has more integrity in his little finger than all the front runners could buy from lobbyist.
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 09-26-2007 at 10:31 AM..
Reason: additional text
Newt. Anyone who votes for Hillary is voting to increase the presense of socialism in this country, whether she outright supports socialism or not. Nationalized healthcare? Please.
If forced to pick the lesser of two evils, I'd have to go for the female fabricator of fortune. I don't know who's calling for nationalized healthcare, though. Certainly not Hillary Clinton.
Hillary, if she were nominated. In this case better the devil you don't know to the Devil you do.
My biggest problem with Hillary is that she would not change enough because the international business interests have already bought her. Gingrich would let the bible thumpers get even more control. I would prefer greed to self-proclaimed preachers any day.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
