Archive

Republican candidates for 2012

  • derek bomar
    Tobias Fünke;1049768 wrote:No, I clearly meant that it's pretty stupid to judge a guy on job creation when the state's economy was doing well and he had a Democrat/liberal (i.e. not very pro-business) state legislature. Don't be ignorant, he did a great job creating jobs in the private sector.
    Ummwhat?
  • majorspark
    Cleveland Buck;1049639 wrote:Ron Paul could take 30% as a 3rd party candidate. He already gets over 20% in 3-way polls against Obamney. If the people could raise him some more money so get his real views out to the public instead of what the news media tell them, he might even win.
    The thing is the states elect the president. Any 3rd party candidate needs to be able to win states. Even a viable 3rd party candidate would likely throw the election into the house of representatives which is heavily controlled by the two major parties.
  • Tobias Fünke
    derek bomar;1049872 wrote:Ummwhat?
    Doing well = low unemployment to begin with.

    Liberal state = Doesn't have the clear advantages that Texas has.

    What's not to get?

    Here:

    [video=youtube;sssTZng7yTI][/video]

    Unemployment was low; job creation isn't the be all end all. He demonstrated his knowledge of job creation in the private sector...why does governing a state with a great unemployment rate suddenly mean he doesn't know how job creation works. Honestly, I'm lost there. Explain it to me, Romney probably didn't suddenly forget how the economy works.
  • BGFalcons82
    Tobias Fünke;1049828 wrote:Clearly you cannot listen.
    Welcome to the Ron Paul is God thread. Hope you enjoy your time here! It appears however that you are up against a multitude of worshippers skewering your every post. Good luck! :D

    Check back in a month or two, when the good doctor has seen the light and runs a 3rd party Obama re-election campaign.
  • BGFalcons82
    majorspark;1049906 wrote:The thing is the states elect the president. Any 3rd party candidate needs to be able to win states. Even a viable 3rd party candidate would likely throw the election into the house of representatives which is heavily controlled by the two major parties.
    I agree until your last comment. A viable 3rd party candidate, ala Ross Perot, only serves to take votes away from one of the 2 established candidates and would likely never win a state. Therefore, unless the 3rd partier can garner a majority of votes in a group of states, they will never throw the election into the House nor win the Presidency.
  • majorspark
    BGFalcons82;1049925 wrote:I agree until your last comment. A viable 3rd party candidate, ala Ross Perot, only serves to take votes away from one of the 2 established candidates and would likely never win a state. Therefore, unless the 3rd partier can garner a majority of votes in a group of states, they will never throw the election into the House nor win the Presidency.
    A viable candidate would be able to take states. I am not talking about a guy who has around 20% popular support scattered about the nation. Ross Perot was not a viable 3rd party candidate. We all knew he had no chance especially after he dropped out then re-entered. He was a spoiler.
  • Footwedge
    majorspark;1049941 wrote:A viable candidate would be able to take states. I am not talking about a guy who has around 20% popular support scattered about the nation. Ross Perot was not a viable 3rd party candidate. We all knew he had no chance especially after he dropped out then re-entered. He was a spoiler.
    Don;t know if RP could win the popular vote in a few swing states. But if he did run as a libertarian and captured 70 or so electoral votes, my guess would be that neither Bama nor Romney would be elected. (270 needed).

    Then all hell breaks loose as the 454 members of Congress vote for any one of the top 3 candidates. Now one might think that with the GOP majority that Romney would be selected, maybe not!. There would be dirision amongst the ranks...with some GOPers breaking ranks and voting Paul. The Dennis Kucinich types may also vote for Paul as well. In such a scenaio, I could actually see Obama re-elected by the House of Representaives...whith a GOP majority no less.

    Then the Senate votes for the VP...with the obvious and very real posibilty of having a "split ticket" running the country.
  • Tobias Fünke
    Footwedge;1049979 wrote:Don;t know if RP could win the popular vote in a few swing states. But if he did run as a libertarian and captured 70 or so electoral votes, my guess would be that neither Bama nor Romney would be elected. (270 needed).

    Then all hell breaks loose as the 454 members of Congress vote for any one of the top 3 candidates. Now one might think that with the GOP majority that Romney would be selected, maybe not!. There would be dirision amongst the ranks...with some GOPers breaking ranks and voting Paul. The Dennis Kucinich types may also vote for Paul as well. In such a scenaio, I could actually see Obama re-elected by the House of Representaives...whith a GOP majority no less.

    Then the Senate votes for the VP...with the obvious and very real posibilty of having a "split ticket" running the country.
    NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Please, just stop already. Ron Paul will not win the Presidency. Face facts. A libertarians best hope is that Rand Paul (easily more moderate and more well spoken) gets the VP nomination.

    Your choices are Obama or Romney. You would be doing yourself and your country a service by realizing that they are no the same.
  • sleeper
    Tobias Fünke;1049988 wrote:NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Please, just stop already. Ron Paul will not win the Presidency. Face facts. A libertarians best hope is that Rand Paul gets the VP nomination.

    Your choices are Obama or Romney. You would be doing yourself and your country a service by realizing that they are no the same.
    This is flawed logic. Why bother voting for Romney, he's not going to win either.
  • HitsRus
    If he can't do it at a state level, he's not going to do anything at the next level.
    If you are going to use that arguement...what has Ron Paul done at any level. Just asking.

    The Dennis Kucinich types may also vote for Paul as well.
    That should tell you all you need to know. I don't care how big his tent gets, if Dennis is under it...I'm out of it.:laugh:
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;1049919 wrote:Welcome to the Ron Paul is God thread. Hope you enjoy your time here! It appears however that you are up against a multitude of worshippers skewering your every post. Good luck! :D

    Check back in a month or two, when the good doctor has seen the light and runs a 3rd party Obama re-election campaign.
    And then the Paulist Worshipers will blame the Repubs for giving BHO 4 more years to destroy this country.

    I'm beginning to wonder which group of loons are worse; liberals or Paulists?
  • Cleveland Buck
    Tobias Fünke;1049988 wrote:NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Please, just stop already. Ron Paul will not win the Presidency. Face facts. A libertarians best hope is that Rand Paul (easily more moderate and more well spoken) gets the VP nomination.

    Your choices are Obama or Romney. You would be doing yourself and your country a service by realizing that they are no the same.
    Yes sir. We are so fortunate to have a country where we have the opportunity to choose our leaders from a hand-selected few with no discernible difference between them. I will be sure to fall in line, sir. The government knows best after all.
  • Tobias Fünke
    Cleveland Buck;1050026 wrote:Yes sir. We are so fortunate to have a country where we have the opportunity to choose our leaders from a hand-selected few with no discernible difference between them. I will be sure to fall in line, sir. The government knows best after all.
  • fish82
    sleeper;1049794 wrote:Ok, so again, how in the hell is Romney going to get anything done when he has a Democratic senate? I don't care if he created 100 million jobs in the private sector, he hasn't accomplished anything in his time as governor. If he can't do it at a state level, he's not going to do anything at the next level.
    He won't have a Democrat senate.
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    wkfan;1049446 wrote:OK...how about this. What has BHO accomplished with his Harvard degree?

    You can try to spin it any way that you like...BHO has not 'accomplshed' much of anything.

    Harvard Law grad
    Community Organizer
    Absent Senator
    Great speech reader
    'Terrible President' (your own words)

    What has this 'impressive resume' done to move our Country ahead??

    Nothing.
    Reps.

    Law school is a joke, movies like The Paper Chase and books like 1L are pure fiction. Harvard Law School doesn't have grades anymore. The key part is getting in, after that you make of it what you will. You can take challenging courses like Partnership Tax or Secured Transactions, or goof it up taking Family Law and Law and Angry Studies. That someone went to Harvard Law School only showed they had good enough grades/LSAT to get in and/or they belonged to a preferred minority group (note, not Asian-Americans, they don't count).

    It is shocking how little Obama did with his HLS degree, the guy could have worked at any law firm in the country or clerked at least on the appellate level if not the SCOTUS level. He didn't do it. He has less experience than your routine 3rd year associate at a decent firm.
  • Tobias Fünke
    Manhattan Buckeye;1050161 wrote:Reps.

    Law school is a joke, movies like The Paper Chase and books like 1L are pure fiction. Harvard Law School doesn't have grades anymore. The key part is getting in, after that you make of it what you will. You can take challenging courses like Partnership Tax or Secured Transactions, or goof it up taking Family Law and Law and Angry Studies. That someone went to Harvard Law School only showed they had good enough grades/LSAT to get in and/or they belonged to a preferred minority group (note, not Asian-Americans, they don't count).

    It is shocking how little Obama did with his HLS degree, the guy could have worked at any law firm in the country or clerked at least on the appellate level if not the SCOTUS level. He didn't do it. He has less experience than your routine 3rd year associate at a decent firm.
    Romney was part of the inaugural dual MBA-JD program, I'm sure it was no joke back then. He graduated cum laude with a JD and in the top 5% of MBA class, a "Baker Scholar" distinction.

    A bit of a difference from Obama.
  • Tobias Fünke
    fish82;1050090 wrote:He won't have a Democrat senate.
    Do projections favor a complete GOP takeover of Congress?
  • Tobias Fünke
    How would the Paulists feel if it actually ended up being a Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket? A guy mentioned this on Fox the other day and the more I think about it the more I fall in love with the idea.
  • fish82
    Tobias Fünke;1050275 wrote:Do projections favor a complete GOP takeover of Congress?
    The Magic 8-Ball says yes.
  • majorspark
    Tobias Fünke;1050275 wrote:Do projections favor a complete GOP takeover of Congress?
    Democrats are defending a larger number of Senate seats.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Tobias Fünke;1050277 wrote:How would the Paulists feel if it actually ended up being a Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket? A guy mentioned this on Fox the other day and the more I think about it the more I fall in love with the idea.
    There is no person that could run as Romney's VP that would make me vote for Romney. I don't care if Ron was his VP, I would still vote 3rd party. And Rand Paul lose millions of Ron Paul supporters as soon as he went out campaigning with Mitt for more wars and corporate welfare and trillion dollar deficits. The VP is a worthless position. He would have no impact on anything as VP. At least as a Senator he has a vote.

    I know Ron wouldn't accept the offer from Mitt. I don't think Rand would either, but who knows. He really shouldn't. If Ron doesn't win this nomination the Republican party is finished anyway. If they try to keep the same bunch of warmongers and deficit spenders atop the party they have no chance of ever winning another election.
  • majorspark
    Tobias Fünke;1050277 wrote:How would the Paulists feel if it actually ended up being a Mitt Romney/Rand Paul ticket? A guy mentioned this on Fox the other day and the more I think about it the more I fall in love with the idea.
    This sounds nice for the political talking heads. Rand would taint his standing with his base. A VP candidate has to tote his presidential candidates line.
  • Cleveland Buck
    [video=youtube;Da6irSCvnZY][/video]

    Apparently Ron's speech after New Hampshire the other night is going viral. It wasn't quite like Romney's teleprompter, empty rhetoric speech. I thought it was good, very good for Ron, but many people were impressed by it, probably because it is one of few times he has had 15 minutes on national TV to get his message out without someone cutting him off and spinning it or smearing him.
  • Footwedge
    Tobias Fünke;1049988 wrote:NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. Please, just stop already. Ron Paul will not win the Presidency. Face facts. A libertarians best hope is that Rand Paul (easily more moderate and more well spoken) gets the VP nomination.

    Your choices are Obama or Romney. You would be doing yourself and your country a service by realizing that they are no the same.
    You need to read what I say...and quit jettisoning things I didn't say. Reread my post...I presented a possible scenario if Ron Paul were to win 50 electoral votes.
  • Tobias Fünke
    Cleveland Buck;1050342 wrote:There is no person that could run as Romney's VP that would make me vote for Romney. I don't care if Ron was his VP, I would still vote 3rd party. And Rand Paul lose millions of Ron Paul supporters as soon as he went out campaigning with Mitt for more wars and corporate welfare and trillion dollar deficits. The VP is a worthless position. He would have no impact on anything as VP. At least as a Senator he has a vote.

    I know Ron wouldn't accept the offer from Mitt. I don't think Rand would either, but who knows. He really shouldn't. If Ron doesn't win this nomination the Republican party is finished anyway. If they try to keep the same bunch of warmongers and deficit spenders atop the party they have no chance of ever winning another election.
    Mitt Romney is a warmonger? GTFO. That is lunacy. Mitt Romney has never, ever been a warmonger. He is talking out of his ass to score primary points. Deep down, as you think he's a liberal, you know that is true.

    Deficit spender? Romney doesn't have a history of that at all. He balanced the budget in Massachusetts after inheriting a $3 billion deficit.
    Romney refused to sign an anti-tax pledge put forth by Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform while campaigning for office.[SUP][5][/SUP] In 2002, Romney presented a plan to balance the budget without raising taxes.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] Romney also favored gambling as a way to help balance the Massachusetts deficit.[SUP][8][/SUP]

    Upon entering office, Romney faced a $3 billion deficit. Facing an immediate fiscal shortfall, the governor asked the state legislature for emergency powers to make "9C" cuts to the fiscal year 2003 budget. Romney cut spending and restructured state government.[SUP][9][/SUP] Romney, in concert with the legislature, created new fees, doubled fees for court filings, professional regulations, marriage licenses, and firearm licenses, and increased fees for many state licenses and services. In all 33 new fees were created, and 57 fees were increased, some that had not been adjusted in over a decade. Some of these fees included were service fees, such as charging businesses more to put up signs. Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.[SUP][10][/SUP] The state of Massachusetts raised $501 million in new income in the first year of the fee increase program, more than any other state in the nation that year (New York was second with $367 million. Nine other states raised fees and fines by more than $100 million).[SUP][11][/SUP][SUP][12][/SUP] Romney increased the state gasoline delivery fee by two cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue; raises the state gas tax to a total of 23 cents, compared with the national average of 28.6 cents per gallon.[SUP][3][/SUP]
    Romney also implemented a "New Market Tax Credit"[SUP][13][/SUP] and extended the "Investment Tax Credit" during 2003.[SUP][14][/SUP]

    A windfall in capital gains tax revenue caused by a previously enacted capital gains tax increase reduced the deficit by $1.3 billion. Romney approved $128 million in tax changes such as sales tax from purchases on the Internet[SUP][15][/SUP] and raised another $181 million in additional business taxes in the next two years; businesses called these changes tax increases, but Romney defended them as the elimination of "loopholes".[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][16][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP] Over his full term, over $300 million of such loopholes were closed.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][17][/SUP] The loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics, initially won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage, before Romney backed away from further closings towards the end of his term.[SUP][17][/SUP] The state also cut spending by $1.6 billion...
    That doesn't really sound like a guy who is all for growing the government and running trillion-dollar deficits. It also doesn't sound like someone who is in the corporations' pockets, being that he closes hundreds of millions of dollars in loopholes they were using.

    If Rand Paul actually accepted the nomination, that would be that Rand Paul is dead serious about doing work. Yes, it's a rather meaningless position but it could also mean that Romney realizes what the people want and wants a Constitutionalist/Budget Expert in his "inner-circle" so he can get his point of view on issues. I think that it would be immensely powerful and would ultimately destroy Obama. If Rand Paul came out and said something along the lines of "I have a great deal of respect for Mitt's business prowess, and in talking over the last few weeks, we discussed his serious desire for true government reform and asked me to help him. It's an offer I couldn't turn down and his sincerity is there," and you still wouldn't vote for him????? GTFO again. You are insane.

    Granted, there's a 1% chance that it actually happens, but that a much higher chance than Ron Paul does of winning the Presidency.