It doesn't matter they are still evil. Not voting doesn't help. The majority of people will vote whether or not the politicians suck, so why not vote for the one that doesn't suck as much as the others?
That's why it's pretty much a tradition to vote for idiots. It doesn't help that a majority of the wildlife will vote for a candidate equally as stupid as they are (ex, Obama, Bush). I don't feel the need to contribute until I get better choices.
Yet if people thought like you, we'd be getting insane freaks like Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney as presidents. The least you can do is vote for the less insane ones like Obama and Ron Paul. They may still be horrible, but a less damaging form of horrible.
Obama was elected mainly due to race and nothing else. Ron Paul seems the only hope but he may also damage the country just as much as all the others.
Ron Paul and Obama would manage the country decently
Travis, your last several posts have been very agreeable from my perspective... and then you go and say this. How in the hell could you believe Ron Paul could "manage the country decently"? I was so close to agreeing with you completely and then I read that.
While I disagree with his view of giving states huge amounts of power and staying completely out of the economy, he is very pro-personal freedom and anti-interventionist in terms of foreign policy.
Again, not a good candidate (none of them are :smile.gif:), but better than someone like Romney or Gingrich.
I'll definitely give you that. But when it comes down to the "lesser of two evils" option I personally believe Ron Paul would be worse... despite the fact that I also believe the states should have more power. I just think Ron Paul would do more harm than good and therefor support a re-election of Obama. Although this argument might have little practical application as it seems Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate. He might run as an independent but I doubt it.
Ron Paul claims to be a "Constitutionalist" yet doesn't believe in the separation of church and state, which is hypocritical in itself, and speaks volumes about consistency.
Ron Paul also claims to be a libertarian but is not.
Lol, I doubt you are the only one. And even so, I am curious as to why you take the same (I assume) stance as Newt Gingrich, of all the candidates. . . .
I know im not the only one, but this forum is mainly made up of anything but Republicans. Newt Gingrich personally is the only one that I think would be able to beat Obama, his talent to win debates has always been amazing. But back onto why he would be a good president, Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs. What he wants to do about Immigration is better than most candidates's plans for that matter, and his plan for education will hopefully help America's education system become a much better one than it is today.
But he is pro-life..
And anti-drugs..
And anti-healthcare..
And pro-religion and state..
And anti-LGBT rights..
And anti-stem cell research..
And pro-intervention in other countries..
Answering your healthcare, he talks about Obamacare and other healthcares that have failed being passed that dont address the root causes of America's health crisis. He wants to set up laws, regulations, bureaucracies that will help this issue.
On your other statements can I have a link telling about where he has stated these things?
My only qualm is that he's not only anti-interventionist, but practically isolationist in his foreign policy. He doesn't want to get our troops off Iraq only; rather, he wants to send ALL troops that are in Europe, Taiwan, Korea, etc. Not only that, he also plans to get the United States out of the damn United Nations.
That in itself is crazy. It would kill our alliances and anger our opponents much more since the US, as a major superpower, is basically saying that it's better than the UN and would rather stay away from it, even if it isn't the actual message he'd like to provide. It just creates unnecessary conflict to even think about it.
Pro life: I do have to agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be able to tell a women what to do with her body. (being able to have an abortion or not).
Anti drugs: That was a long time ago, we aren't certain if he still stands by that.
Pro religion and state: Same as bottom
Anti LGBT: Its sad but if you were raised by a family that taught you something about life, you will probably live with that state of mind.
As I said, not perfect, not even good, but better than someone like Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum who want to go to war in every place imaginable.
Oh definitely. I'm not saying that the other candidates are any better. Obama's the least of all evils, and he would get my vote if I could. Most Presidents get reelected anyway, even the terrible ones. By all means, Obama isn't terrible, just not good. The next election should have the more respectable Republicans coming in like Chris Christie and such since there's no threat of a reelection. It's an open race.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAHHHH!!!
don't click this link...
I'm not voting until conditions improve, otherwise I would be voting for something I don't want. This is illegal.
I'm finally back. See profile for details.
They are still evil. If I voted for an evil man I'd have to take my sword and disembowel myself for betraying my own kind.
I'm finally back. See profile for details.
That's why it's pretty much a tradition to vote for idiots. It doesn't help that a majority of the wildlife will vote for a candidate equally as stupid as they are (ex, Obama, Bush). I don't feel the need to contribute until I get better choices.
I'm finally back. See profile for details.
Obama was elected mainly due to race and nothing else. Ron Paul seems the only hope but he may also damage the country just as much as all the others.
I'm finally back. See profile for details.
Travis, your last several posts have been very agreeable from my perspective... and then you go and say this. How in the hell could you believe Ron Paul could "manage the country decently"? I was so close to agreeing with you completely and then I read that.
I'll definitely give you that. But when it comes down to the "lesser of two evils" option I personally believe Ron Paul would be worse... despite the fact that I also believe the states should have more power. I just think Ron Paul would do more harm than good and therefor support a re-election of Obama. Although this argument might have little practical application as it seems Ron Paul will not be the Republican candidate. He might run as an independent but I doubt it.
Ron Paul also claims to be a libertarian but is not.
Hello i'm the one Republican on MC Forums.
My reason is that you can google Newt Gingrich and find out everything about him.
It's when people find out everything about him that they usually realize how terrible of a candidate he is.
I know im not the only one, but this forum is mainly made up of anything but Republicans. Newt Gingrich personally is the only one that I think would be able to beat Obama, his talent to win debates has always been amazing. But back onto why he would be a good president, Newt has a pro-growth strategy similar to the proven policies used when he was Speaker to balance the budget, pay down the debt, and create jobs. What he wants to do about Immigration is better than most candidates's plans for that matter, and his plan for education will hopefully help America's education system become a much better one than it is today.
Have fun on your bias sites filled with crap about people and not what they want to do to help this country.
Answering your healthcare, he talks about Obamacare and other healthcares that have failed being passed that dont address the root causes of America's health crisis. He wants to set up laws, regulations, bureaucracies that will help this issue.
On your other statements can I have a link telling about where he has stated these things?
My only qualm is that he's not only anti-interventionist, but practically isolationist in his foreign policy. He doesn't want to get our troops off Iraq only; rather, he wants to send ALL troops that are in Europe, Taiwan, Korea, etc. Not only that, he also plans to get the United States out of the damn United Nations.
That in itself is crazy. It would kill our alliances and anger our opponents much more since the US, as a major superpower, is basically saying that it's better than the UN and would rather stay away from it, even if it isn't the actual message he'd like to provide. It just creates unnecessary conflict to even think about it.
Also, the getting rid of the IRS thing.
Oh definitely. I'm not saying that the other candidates are any better. Obama's the least of all evils, and he would get my vote if I could. Most Presidents get reelected anyway, even the terrible ones. By all means, Obama isn't terrible, just not good. The next election should have the more respectable Republicans coming in like Chris Christie and such since there's no threat of a reelection. It's an open race.
Wow, that post is very incoherent. I need sleep.
So you're saying he's inconsistent with his believes..? Oh, phew. For a second I thought he actually stood for the **** he preaches.
Really? Why?