What's new

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

86% - Ron Paul
83% - Mitt

My top two. I will not vote for Paul because he can't beat Obama. I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama. My number one choice is Huntsman. Everything conservative candidates say they will do, he has done. Plus, he is middle of the road on worthless issues, ie issues that mean nothing (abortion, gay marriage) that he would be the next Reagan. He is the only guy that could win 49 out of 50 states that is running.
 
There's a very real possibility that the R's take over all three branches in the '12 elections.

While that thought makes me gag, I also think it might not be as bad as it could be. After all if this current congress has taught us one thing it is that their petty pissing matches are more important than making compromises and decisions to help real people. Maybe if they were all of one flavor they might actually get something done. Of course, that something might be horrifying, so then it makes me gag again. What is worse, a government that infights so much they never do anything or a government so single-minded they only act on the interests of part of the population while at least getting some **** done?
 
Okay, thanks for the replies.

What does everyone think of Romney?? Does he seriously offer a drastic change to the current government?

Romney offers no change from the current administration.
Mitt Romney basically wrote Obamacare from his own plan in New Hampshire.
He has been a career flip-flopper on everything from abortion to foreign policy.
The only real change comes from Ron Paul, who will stick to constitutional restraints and get the government out of your life.
 
86% - Ron Paul
83% - Mitt

My top two. I will not vote for Paul because he can't beat Obama. I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama. My number one choice is Huntsman. Everything conservative candidates say they will do, he has done. Plus, he is middle of the road on worthless issues, ie issues that mean nothing (abortion, gay marriage) that he would be the next Reagan. He is the only guy that could win 49 out of 50 states that is running.

Ron Paul is tied with Obama in many polls.
Mitt Romney is a carbon copy of Obama, posing to be on the right side of the fence.
So if you want to vote for Obama again, go ahead and vote for Romney.
He talks so much about getting the economy going again, but mentions nothing of the reason our economy is horrible.
It's the Federal Reserve and the banksters that run it from outside this country.
Do you hear Romney talking about only going to war with declaration? No.
Do you hear Romney talking about shutting down the IRS? No.
Do you hear Romney talking about shutting down the Fed? Nope.

Ron Paul.....
Yes....
Yes....
And yes...
 
What is worse, a government that infights so much they never do anything or a government so single-minded they only act on the interests of part of the population while at least getting some **** done?

A "split" government that pretends to fight non-stop so we think they're not shaking hands and screwing us over. The fighting is a hoax. If you don't believe me then I'll remind you that Obama's controlled house and senate passed the largest defense spending increase in the history of this nation while cutting education funding to pay for it. How stimulating.

But at least that money finally completed Bill Clinton/Madeline Albright/entire-we-were-for-the-war-and-we-know-there-are-WMD-in-Iraq-before-we-were-against-the-war-and-Bush-lied-about-WMD democratic party amIright?
 
Last edited:
86% - Ron Paul
83% - Mitt

My top two. I will not vote for Paul because he can't beat Obama. I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama. My number one choice is Huntsman. Everything conservative candidates say they will do, he has done. Plus, he is middle of the road on worthless issues, ie issues that mean nothing (abortion, gay marriage) that he would be the next Reagan. He is the only guy that could win 49 out of 50 states that is running.

That's a ******** mentality.
 
That's a ******** mentality.

No. That is a "anyone is going to be better than Obama" mentality. If someone is dead-set against Obama I would expect this kind of an attitude. It says "I think any and all of the current crop of candidates will be better for our country than Obama, so I will support whoever I think has the best shot of beating him". Very reasonable if that is your stance. Why vote for someone with no chance of beating Obama when your primary goal is to oust Obama. Now that makes no sense.
 
Pretty weird how they had to move where they typically tabulate the votes to a different location and how slowly the rate of return came in. I'm beginning to think these "Anonymous" hackers in the group Anonymous might actually be NSAnonymous or some other pentagon backed group like the SITE group that releases Al Qaeda videos before even Al Qaeda does. There's just something fishy there.

Also, I'm pretty sure Rick Santorum is just Steve Forbes incognito, but he's still the coolest Mormon running for office currently.
 
Newt is my leader with 79%

Except for Huntsman (45%) and Obama (35%) the rest fall with in 50-70%

So like I thought I am a right leaning independent. Biggest areas that seemed to knock down alot of the Repubs for me was immigration and marriage.
 
From being raised on Walter Cronkite pontifications about how it is, I'm just glad I lived long enough to see people start thinking, and figuring things out, for themselves.

I actually like Gingrich most based on what I think is actual intelligence, and I know how important intelligence is in real life. Where "leaders" who are merely bigger dumb sheep running scared over this or that distant coyote howl can take the whole herd over a cliff or into another war, we should vote for intelligence. I know he's played the game and made the deals in his time in office, but I've listened to him quite a bit, and I think, of all the "mainstreamers", he actually does care about this country and its people.

Ron Paul is actually right on the issues, but if he is going to lead us out of excessive governance he really needs to play and talk like he is trying to be reasonable with the movers and shakers who are pulling the puppet strings on our present crop of plantation managers.

Maybe Gingrich has shaped up his personal life. Now he needs to realize that membership in the CFR is not the wave of the future, for prospective "leaders". Well, not if we are going to be a free people.

Sorry all you Mormons out there, if we are going to save our Constitution we have to dump the Mormon politicians who are running with the "in crowd". Romney and Huntsman. Huntsman is much smarter than Romney, but like I saw in the deal Huntsman made with Reid, trading Utah water to Las Vegas in exchange for the Ambassador spot in China. . . . . which he in turn just dumped to get into the Presidential race. . . . I think in his case his "smarts" are a major liability for us. Nobody should vote for Huntsman. He's gaming the people for his own career, no matter what he says. I sat in his office and looked him in the eye when we talked about the Utah water, and he broke his promise to me. Nobody should ever trust that man with a dime.

Oh, and I think Santorum has a good shot at being the answer to the anti-Mormon conservative Bible-belter problem. He's got some genuine conservative streaks, and is savvy enough to play the game. But he's not going to actually solve any problems if he gets elected, oh except for maybe actually getting some of the problems out of Obamacare or something. But he will keep it, and let it age until it can't be undone. . . . like all the other "mainstreamers" except for Gingrich, who in my wildest guess I think is smart enough and effective enough to make it actually work, even if he can't get it undone.....

But the bottom line for me is still just this: I'll vote for all the Ron Pauls I ever see who can be counted on to try to do what they believe is right.


I'm just sick enough of the way people have tried for all of my life to go along and get along in politics, I'm just never going to vote for any mainstreamer, period.
 
I'm not much of a Huntsman fan either. He reminds me of Greg Miller, born into the right family. I wonder what either one of them would have become without daddy's money.
 
Saw an article that said Santorum had moved into third place in N.H. Then I read the article and realised that he still only had 8% compared to Romneys 41%. Got to love the headlines lol.

Santorum raised 1 million the night he won Iowa. That will give him some fresh steam. If I was him I would push hard for S.C not N.H. Bad move I think.
 
I actually like Gingrich most based on what I think is actual intelligence, and I know how important intelligence is in real life. Where "leaders" who are merely bigger dumb sheep running scared over this or that distant coyote howl can take the whole herd over a cliff or into another war, we should vote for intelligence. I know he's played the game and made the deals in his time in office, but I've listened to him quite a bit, and I think, of all the "mainstreamers", he actually does care about this country and its people.

Great point. I might not act like it but I view politics as a side show. My boss calls it WWF and thinks they should bring in Vince McMahon to make it more entertaining.

It's a shame folks like Gingrich have to play the game to appease radicals rather than us supporting him using his intelligence to make the best choices he can. I can support an honest mistake he may make. It's the mistakes with an underlying agenda that bug all of us, I think, and they tend to be much more detrimental than mistakes formed out of a genuine care for the people and country.
 
Back
Top