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.
Well, you said "Hillary would have done a better job". And I say, how much better can you do as a nominee than winning the presidency? Who knows if Hillary could have gotten that far? If you are talking about what happens after that, once you've won... well, that's a bit too far down the road for me. I think if the GOP has found their Obama, then they should be thrilled that they will get the White House back. Hopefully their policies will work better than the Dems and they can hold it for awhile.
Still, a 3 term governor of the 2nd largest state and a economy similar in size to Canada or Russia is far and away the most executive and economic experience of any other GOP candidate.
And it's fine you'd think that; you already said you were a Paul supporter first, then a Libertarian. So you would have very little relevance (beyond the current support of Paul) in the GOP nominee decision. And we know the bad blood Paul and his supporters seem to have with Perry... I suppose I'd want Perry to fail too, if I was supporting another candidate.
The reality is that Bachmann did the best in the debate; I can agree with that. But to say Perry failed, that's just wishful thinking on your part. He was the frontrunner going in, he's the frontrunner coming out. Bachmann probably got bumped up; Paul got bumped down. Romney will remain hovering at about 20%.
Not according to Time, they gave Mitt Romney the best grade.
Well, you said "Hillary would have done a better job". And I say, how much better can you do as a nominee than winning the presidency? Who knows if Hillary could have gotten that far? If you are talking about what happens after that, once you've won... well, that's a bit too far down the road for me. I think if the GOP has found their Obama, then they should be thrilled that they will get the White House back. Hopefully their policies will work better than the Dems and they can hold it for awhile.
If wishes were fishes...lol. But we shall see, it's a long way there. Politics is a strange thing, sometimes the very thing you count on happening just doesn't and it goes in another direction completely.
Perry is being exposed to have some "liberal" policies, isn't he? Requiring cervical cancer vaccinations for 12-year-old girls, and giving in-state tuition to illegal immigrants?
He's not the solid conservative that he's claimed to be.
Those are glimmers of his old Democratic leanings. They are still there and tonight they peeked out.
Are you seriously referring to a CD poll? If thats your criteria than according to almost every other non-scientific poll on the internet Paul would be winning about 40-60% of the votes. If you want to see how crazy it is to use CD polls for anything meaningful than all that you'd have to do is take a quick trip to the city vs city subforum and check those polls, because that is about as telling as you can get to try to extract any meaningful data from a CD poll.
Wait... you mean CD polls aren't completely inaccurate? Next thing you'll be saying is that internet polls in general are meaningless.
Quote:
I'm supporting the fact that I would not vote for any other GOP candidate other than Paul, how you managed to try to spin it to mean that it would have no impact on the GOP nominee though is beyond me. It would be one less vote for either the GOP or the DNC, but the only party that will likely get my vote in 2012 would be the GOP. I'd be their lost opportunity.
Republicans vote for the GOP nominee. Independents vote for someone else if they don't like the GOP nominee. I'm just reading you as an Independent (or maybe a Libertarian) based on your description of your voting thought process. And as an independent within the GOP party during the nomination process, I'm not sure you really have much relevance, as the process is dominated by conservative Republicans. I don't think that's jumping to any conclusions, but sorry if I offended.
Still, a 3 term governor of the 2nd largest state and a economy similar in size to Canada or Russia is far and away the most executive and economic experience of any other GOP candidate.
I wouldn't support my 3rd term governor of the largest state for president either. And he's been a mayor, secretary of state, and attorney general. He hasn't been good at any of those jobs, just like Perry hasn't been good at any of his.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
And it's fine you'd think that; you already said you were a Paul supporter first, then a Libertarian. So you would have very little relevance (beyond the current support of Paul) in the GOP nominee decision. And we know the bad blood Paul and his supporters seem to have with Perry... I suppose I'd want Perry to fail too, if I was supporting another candidate.
The reality is that Bachmann did the best in the debate; I can agree with that. But to say Perry failed, that's just wishful thinking on your part. He was the frontrunner going in, he's the frontrunner coming out. Bachmann probably got bumped up; Paul got bumped down. Romney will remain hovering at about 20%.
Bachmann did her best by way of knocking Perry back to the bench. I'd argue that all of us Paul supporters are having more of an impact than you'd like to admit to. The line of questioning in almost every debate and the things the candidates are talking about on the trail are the things that Paul has been talking about for decades. Asking the candidates about auditing the fed tonight? Saying no to federal bailouts? Those are Ron Paul signature issues.
Are you seriously referring to a CD poll? If thats your criteria than according to almost every other non-scientific poll on the internet Paul would be winning about 40-60% of the votes. If you want to see how crazy it is to use CD polls for anything meaningful than all that you'd have to do is take a quick trip to the city vs city subforum and check those polls, because that is about as telling as you can get to try to extract any meaningful data from a CD poll.
And don't put points in my mouth. I wrote that I would not vote for any of those candidates if Paul does not get the nomination. I never said that Paul running would lead to an Obama win. And I'm supporting the fact that I would not vote for any other GOP candidate other than Paul, how you managed to try to spin it to mean that it would have no impact on the GOP nominee though is beyond me. It would be one less vote for either the GOP or the DNC, but the only party that will likely get my vote in 2012 would be the GOP. I'd be their lost opportunity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
Wait... you mean CD polls aren't completely inaccurate? Next thing you'll be saying is that internet polls in general are meaningless.
I think that I just did. Anyone with a rudimentary grasp of statistics would never pretend that any of these internet polls (especially on a forum like this) mean anything.
The Ron Paul troll crew kills every internet poll out there. I'm not above admitting that and I'm not above saying that they just make us look amateur.
Here is where I really lose your argument though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxcio
Republicans vote for the GOP nominee. Independents vote for someone else if they don't like the GOP nominee. I'm just reading you as an Independent (or maybe a Libertarian) based on your description of your voting thought process. And as an independent within the GOP party during the nomination process, I'm not sure you really have much relevance, as the process is dominated by conservative Republicans. I don't think that's jumping to any conclusions, but sorry if I offended.
No offense taken, but if you look back at how the primaries have effected the candidate selection from both sides (and even 3rd parties see LP and Greens in 2008) then you'll see it is more influential than you're giving it credit. You're continuing an argument that history has refuted for decades.
Yea no reason to tell the truth. Just keep the information away from the public. They're too stupid and would probably take things the wrong way.
I think it's best to keep business as usual and allow all these smart people to run our country.
Just proves to me some people are not serious about electing politicians with integrity.
Sorry to keep pressing; are these Republican sheeple, or independent sheeple? Moderate or conservative? I ask because depending on the poll, about 40-56% of supposedly GOP voters identify themselves with the Tea Party.
They are some of both. Some are very educated on the issues and are strict Constitutionalists. Others are clueless about the Constitution. All are mistrustful of the government . Most were against the bankster bailouts and TARP. All think they pay too much in taxes. That's about where the similarities end.
Originally all were against the bankster bailouts but then the neo-cons infiltrated who thought the banks "needed" to be bailed out.
But Obama won the election. He's the sitting president. Technically he hasn't lost an election yet.
He didn't lose his election to the Senate because no one ran against him.
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.
