Republican candidates for 2012

• BGFalcons82

  

  Cleveland Buck;898265 wrote:The only polls I have seen break it down have Paul dominating Obama with independents. In fact, Paul is the only Republican who beats Obama with independents, which is why he is the only Republican that can't beat Obama in a general election.

  Fixed it for ya by adding a letter.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  BGFalcons82;898279 wrote:Did your hero ever admit to one in full public display?

  I'm sure he has, but I know his mistakes didn't consist of supporting Hillarycare, campaigning for Al Gore, mandating STD vaccines for children via executive order because Merck donated $400,000 to him over the years, doubling government spending in his state or tripling the debt in his state. I know Paul's mistakes didn't include ever voting for a tax increase or ever voting for an unbalanced budget or ever voting to restrict gun rights or any rights.
• wkfan

  Cleveland Buck;898325 wrote:I'm sure he has, but I know his mistakes didn't consist of supporting Hillarycare, campaigning for Al Gore, mandating STD vaccines for children via executive order because Merck donated $400,000 to him over the years, doubling government spending in his state or tripling the debt in his state. I know Paul's mistakes didn't include ever voting for a tax increase or ever voting for an unbalanced budget or ever voting to restrict gun rights or any rights.

  No...but his are, among others, mandating ObamaCare, continually campaigning instead of leading, racking up the largest debt in America's history by simply trying to print (money) his way out of a recession or not proposing a balanced budget....not to mention trying to build the largest government in our nation's history so that more and more of us are dependent upon that government rather than letting, or encouraging the free enterprise system to work.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  wkfan;898430 wrote:No...but his are, among others, mandating ObamaCare, continually campaigning instead of leading, racking up the largest debt in America's history by simply trying to print (money) his way out of a recession or not proposing a balanced budget....not to mention trying to build the largest government in our nation's history so that more and more of us are dependent upon that government rather than letting, or encouraging the free enterprise system to work.

  I was responding to him asking if "my hero" ever admitted to a mistake in full display. He is talking about Ron Paul, not Obama. I edited my post to get the Obama part out of there.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;898164 wrote:I cannot recall anyone claiming that Bush was a "great president." I scratched my head at many Bush decisions and "Bush-isms."

  Eh, Quaker's statement to which I was responding made it seem like GWB was a great president. Perhaps I misunderstood, though.
  

  believer;898164 wrote:Nevertheless here's a fair question that begs to be asked: Is the average American better off (at least economically) after 3 years of an Obama Administration than we were under most of Bush's 8 years in office? Intellectually honest folks know the answer.

  Oh, I would agree that we are not. However, I can't help but attribute SOME of that to timing. Our federal government has been raping our economy for decades. It has flared up a few times, as a result. It really started hitting the fan toward the end of W's presidency. Now, I would certainly not wipe President Obama's hands of guilt, as he has exacerbated the problem probably more than any president in my lifetime (there haven't been that many, to be fair), but I wouldn't place that much of the guilt for the economic slide itself on his shoulders as much as I would the decades of presidents, one after the other, who slowly turned our economic structure into something it was not intended to be.
  

  believer;898164 wrote: There's no question that Bush liked to spend money and that Obama has taken it to new heights.

  I wouldn't disagree at all. Virtually every president in my lifetime has spent inordinate amounts of money on things he shouldn't have.
  

  believer;898164 wrote: Yet if I had to choose between Bush's "well-intentioned" views on what America should be vs. Obama's, I can say without hesitation that the choice is a no-brainer.

  I might just refuse to choose at that point. Both only perpetuated the problem. Obama does bring things to the table that Bush didn't in terms of what could benefit the country (more international benevolence, less appearance of ethnocentrism, etc). From an economic standpoint alone, I would probably say the same as you if I had a gun to my head, but I still wouldn't at all be happy with my choice.
• O-Trap

  

  Cleveland Buck;898265 wrote:The only polls I have seen break it down have Paul dominating Obama with independents. In fact, Paul is the only Republican who beats Obama with independents, which is why he is the only Republican that can beat Obama in a general election.

  
  Bingo.
  

  BGFalcons82;898308 wrote:Fixed it for ya by adding a letter.

  I take it you don't think there are many indepenedents in this country. Fact is, poll after poll have been putting him closer to beating the incumbent than any other talking head from the "Republican" side of the aisle.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;898217 wrote:I love it when Perry speaks the truth - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/perry-repeats-socialist-charge-against-obama-policies/
  
  The take-home:
  
  “Look, when all the answers emanate from Washington, D.C., one size fits all, whether it’s education policy or whether it’s health care policy, that is, on its face, socialism,” Mr. Perry told Time’s Richard Stengel and Mark Halperin.

  I agree, which is why STATES should make such decisions, because they know their sitz im leben better than the Federal government does.
  
  And who has been saying that for several decades now?
• jmog

  Ty Webb;897628 wrote:But yet.....he is still leading Romney by 5 and Perry by 8. Does that show you how much the American people hate Republicans right now?

  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html
  
  You might want to check your math.
  
  Obama is losing to a generic republican right now, and believe that as the people learn more about the final candidate that they will take a lead over Obama as well.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I have never been much of a conspiracy theorist. My experience in the White House leads me to believe that a secret is currency that it is quickly spent. Some conspiracy theories have thousands of people in large organizations, operating with extraordinary discipline, keeping secrets for hundreds of years, a mathematical impossibility in my opinion.
  
  Having said that, my lifetime of studying history informs me that conspiracies do happen and usually when a group of people feel threatened. And in case you were wondering, Ron Paul, the presidential candidate, is very likely the subject of a conspiracy. He is the man who has opened that door on the Federal Reserve.
  
  The partial audit he prompted revealed that close to $16 trillion was doled out to Euro-American insiders and their corporations in 2008 alone. That is more than the entire national debt. It is a tax on every American and unless you are getting billions of that money yourself, you ought to be outraged and grateful to Ron Paul for figuring this all out.
  
  It is no accident that the media ignored Ron Paul's upset showing at the Ames Straw Poll. It was so obvious to the whole nation that we laughed when Jon Stewart joked about it.
  
  It is no accident that in one of the early debates a director at MSNBC was picked up screaming into Chris Matthews earpiece, "Don't go to Ron Paul, don't go to Ron Paul," even though it was a health-related question and Ron Paul was a medical doctor.
  
  In the CNN debate, Wolf Blitzer asked numerous candidates about the idea of auditing the Federal Reserve but not Ron Paul who wrote the New York Times bestseller on the subject and introduced the bill in Congress that sparked the recent partial audit. Nor is it accidental that it was called a tea party event and the "father of the tea party” wasn't acknowledged as such.
  
  Blitzer raised expectations at the beginning of the debate saying that "I will try my best to make sure that each candidate is getting his or her fair share of the questions and answering time."
  
  Blitzer then proceeded to give Rick Perry 21 opportunities, Mitt Romney 13, Michele Bachmann 11. Ron Paul was given nine. (In the CNN presidential poll released the day before, Ron Paul was shown third in the presidential race, behind Perry and Romney, beating Bachman who was down 6 points.)
  
  To give you an idea of how this sort of thing works, let me offer a historical example from the other side of the ideological spectrum, from the left. In 1934 Upton Sinclair ran for governor of California. Most students had read his novel, "The Jungle," which exposed the corruption and health hazards of the American meat-processing industry.
  
  Sinclair was a popular and compelling figure. The nation was in the throes of the Great Depression and the people of California liked his ideas. He stunned the Democrat Party establishment by winning the nomination and it was likely that he would be elected governor in the general election.
  
  The conspiracy to stop Mr. Sinclair was organized by a California oligarchy, a small group of wealthy businessmen who feared losing control of the California governor's mansion and all the money it represented. Besides, Sinclair was a socialist and had once run for Congress on the Socialist Party ticket.
  
  The conspirators arranged for a "Progressive" to run as a third-party candidate to split Sinclair's vote. They helped fund the campaign and poured money into the rival Republican but it didn't stop there.
  
  They launched a full-court press. The famous preacher Aimee Semple McPherson, unused to attention from such prominent Californians, was enlisted and persuaded to use her pulpit to preach to thousands about the dangers of Upton Sinclair and his crazy Socialist ideas.
  
  This secret conspiracy only became known because it involved President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his records survived. Candidate Sinclair made the long journey across the country to Hyde Park where he met with FDR, the chief Democrat, and often the target of accusations of socialism himself.
  
  Sinclair explained his situation and asked the leader of his party for help. He left Hyde Park convinced that Roosevelt would soon publicly endorse him. But we now know that the California oligarchy had already covered that base. Roosevelt was offered a proposal from the California Cabal.
  
  They promised that the Republican candidate, if elected governor, would not oppose FDR's New Deal in their state. In return, FDR would withhold any endorsement of the Democrat ticket. Unknown to Sinclair, the deal was struck. Upton Sinclair went down to defeat. A Republican was elected. The oligarchy ruled.
  
  Now, this story is instructive on two counts. It shows that conspiracies do indeed take place, they can involve the highest elected officials in the land, and they almost always involve money and private corporations.
  
  In this case, with Ron Paul, we are talking about sums of money that stagger the imagination. Wonder why your house isn’t worth as much? Wonder why your IRA and retirement accounts are diminished? Wonder why milk cost more and bread cost more? And wonder where all that money has gone?
  
  It is in the pockets of people and corporations who run this country and their business partners and friends in Europe. They don’t care about left or right, Democrat or Republican; they prosper under both. They don’t care about creationism or evolution. They care about money.
  
  Remember, this is, and this has always been, a game of Monopoly. And they have been cheating. And Ron Paul has caught them.[LEFT]
  Read more on Newsmax.com: The Conspiracy Against Ron Paul
  [/LEFT]

  http://www.newsmax.com/DougWead/Conspiracy-Ron-Paul-Federal/2011/09/16/id/411246
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;895650 wrote:You are absolutely right about Japan. We could have avoided being attacked by them, but the fact of the matter is they attacked us and we responded. When we were attacked on 9/11 Ron Paul voted to respond there too. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

  My point is he is trying to feed a porterhouse steak to infants and they are choking on it. You and I may understand what he is saying. People like you and I are not the average voter. I mentioned our foreign policy meddling with the Japanese in the lead up to Pearl Harbor as a reason they chose to attack. Not saying our meddling was wrong but it is factually correct as reasons for the attack. It is intellectual reasoning 70yrs later. In 1948 strong emotions were still running very high. People running solely on their emotions loose reason. A candidate arguing an anti-interventionist foreign policy presenting this as an example in 1948 would have been toast. Ditto 9/11 and the 2012 presidential campaign.
  
  Here is where Paul loses me and many others on this issue. When he asks what would we do if a great foreign power occupied our lands a was oppressing us. Like I said before we would fight. We have been there. We did not send passenger vessels packed with gun powder into the port of London and detonate them. We wrote a letter to the empire and told them we were through with them. Then took on the empires military face to face and defeated them. When Paul says these things he give the impression that he understands the motives of the 9/11 attackers and by default their tactics. I know Paul does not sympathize with their tactics but I am not the average voter.
  
  If Paul wants to get average people to understand his ideology concerning this issue he is going to have to figure out a way to digest it and feed it to the infants in the form of milk. Personally I think Paul is quite unrealistic when it comes to playing the game on the worlds field. He is solid everywhere else. He is not outside of my vote though at this point he is unlikely to get it in the primary.
• majorspark

  

  Cleveland Buck;895650 wrote:Invading countries that haven't attacked us and picking the dictators that these people live under in the Middle East doesn't make us any safer and we can't afford it.

  We don't pick their dictators. We just buy the ones off that can keep the trouble makers in line. Say we divorced ourselves from the middle east. Historically its never been a peaceful place. Long before the USA entered the world scene these peoples have been having it out. So if we leave them to their own devices and they revert to their old ways and the free flow of oil is disrupted under Ron Paul we should do nothing unless our lands were attacked. If a disruption in the free flow of oil happened in the middle east causing the price to skyrocket it would be very costly to the US economy. The world is a dirty place. We got to at times hedge our bets. I know we go to far at times but if we turned our back we would get stabbed.
  
  As for affording it we can't afford everything. That is the problem. If we prioritize our spending and bring it under control we could afford a little of these things. But I agree at this point this may be a mute argument as our choices in spending will soon be limited to the basics.
  

  Cleveland Buck;895650 wrote:We can't afford to have our troops in Germany and Japan and everywhere else protecting them so they can fund their welfare states.

  I have advocated this many many times. Hell I have even argued pulling out of NATO. We have been subsidizing their welfare states for too long. The thing is their will be hell to pay in those states if we pulled out. The babies will throw a fit when the pacifier is ripped from their mouths.
  

  Cleveland Buck;895650 wrote:I think having maybe 25-50 bases around the world in places where they want us would be a good thing, but Ron Paul's position is definitely closer to mine in that regard than the warmongers who want to invade Iran and Syria and start nation building in Libya.

  You and I are probably not that far off. I find Paul's foreign policy position unrealistic but I am not in the camp a this point with those that want to use military force against Iran, Syria, and Libya.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;898164 wrote:I cannot recall anyone claiming that Bush was a "great president." I scratched my head at many Bush decisions and "Bush-isms."
  
  Nevertheless here's a fair question that begs to be asked: Is the average American better off (at least economically) after 3 years of an Obama Administration than we were under most of Bush's 8 years in office? Intellectually honest folks know the answer.
  
  There's no question that Bush liked to spend money and that Obama has taken it to new heights.
  
  Yet if I had to choose between Bush's "well-intentioned" views on what America should be vs. Obama's, I can say without hesitation that the choice is a no-brainer.

  So you still think that Obama is purposefully trying to "ruin" America?
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;899375 wrote:So you still think that Obama is purposefully trying to "ruin" America?

  Oh I've never really said "Obama's trying to ruin America." I have, however, pointed out on may occasions that I believe Obama sees his ideal America as one based on the European socialist model. After all, European socialism has proved to be a success...right?
  
  Barry is all about redistribution of wealth. He clearly loathes capitalism and is the most anti-business POTUS I've seen in my lifetime.
  
  I've said this before and it deserves repeating: Capitalism, despite its flaws, has provided far more people with a higher standard of living than socialism ever hopes to achieve.
  
  Therefore, if I'm forced to choose between a pro-capitalist big spender and an pro-socialist big spender, the choice is obviously clear.
• BGFalcons82

  

  O-Trap;898545 wrote:I take it you don't think there are many indepenedents in this country. Fact is, poll after poll have been putting him closer to beating the incumbent than any other talking head from the "Republican" side of the aisle.

  Ron Paul is like the 2nd string QB. Everyone loves him and many become passionate because they truly believe he has all the answers. Then, when the starter goes down, we all get to learn why he was the 2nd stringer...sometimes with horrendous results. I understand why people like Ron Paul. Hell, I like Ron Paul. He's just not capable of leading the free world and representing freedom. As majorspark stated, we can't run away from the MidEast, as much as he says he wants to do it. This country has a large appetite for oil and we'll never survive on switchgrass, ethanol, wind, and pixie dust.
  
  As far as "independents" go, these people never vote as a block and are easily coerced. If you don't believe me, then look how our current moron got elected. Strong leadership, a sense of doing the right things, and being a positive influence will win the day come November, 2012. For these reasons, I believe Chris Christie is the best choice, but we know how he feels about it. He may have made a huge error in not running as the Pub nominee stands a better than average chance of winning and that could render Christie harmless until 2020. What will he be doing in 9 years? Don't know, but he'll certainly be out of the limelight. His time to shine is right now.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;899381 wrote:Oh I've never really said "Obama's trying to ruin America." I have, however, pointed out on may occasions that I believe Obama's sees his ideal America as one based on the European socialist model. After all, European socialism has proved to be a success...right?
  
  Barry is all about redistribution of wealth. He clearly loathes capitalism and is the most anti-business POTUS I've seen in my lifetime.
  
  I've said this before and it deserves repeating: Capitalism, despite its flaws, has provided far more people with a higher standard of living than socialism ever hopes to achieve.
  
  Therefore, if I'm forced to choose between a pro-capitalist big spender and an pro-socialist big spender, the choice is obviously clear.

  Well I mean: http://gcr.weforum.org/getr2010/
  Lots of what you'd consider to be European socialist countries are apparently more business friendly than the US.
• believer

  

  I Wear Pants;899435 wrote:Well I mean: http://gcr.weforum.org/getr2010/
  Lots of what you'd consider to be European socialist countries are apparently more business friendly than the US.

  Proof positive that the United States is heading in the wrong direction.
  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote:This country has a large appetite for oil and we'll never survive on switchgrass, ethanol, wind, and pixie dust.

  Shhhhhhhh........Speaking the truth can put you on Janet Napolitano's domestic terrorist watch list.
• O-Trap

  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote:Ron Paul is like the 2nd string QB. Everyone loves him and many become passionate because they truly believe he has all the answers. Then, when the starter goes down, we all get to learn why he was the 2nd stringer...sometimes with horrendous results.

  This is a classic false analogy fallacy. Football, or any other sport, requires a different KIND of asset in order to be what one would consider "good" at it. With football, you're talking predominantly about athletic talent, whether God-given or earned.
  
  With something such as the presidency, it has as much to do with someone's positions and convictions. Paul has these to a degree that validates him as the "starter" more than any other candidate. You won't find a candidate on either side of the aisle with more long-standing consistency, willingness to go toe-to-toe with their own party on issues of freedom and government responsibility, not attempting to expand government authority past what its own governing document allows, and not supporting motions of self-interest (voting himself a pay raise for example, which he's voted 'no' on everytime, contrary to these "starters").
  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote:I understand why people like Ron Paul. Hell, I like Ron Paul. He's just not capable of leading the free world and representing freedom.

  Explain to me how the only candidate that actually stands for objective freedom, and who has done so with such consistency, for considerably longer than any other candidate, is not capable? Is it because he's not an eloquent speaker? Well if that's all you need, then the current third-stringer will suffice just fine.
  
  Fact of the matter is, your options are someone who supports freedom, and then people who support a few selective elements of freedom, but in all actually have a track record of managing the government in a very similar way to their cross-aisle counterpart.
  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote:As majorspark stated, we can't run away from the MidEast, as much as he says he wants to do it. This country has a large appetite for oil and we'll never survive on switchgrass, ethanol, wind, and pixie dust.

  Who said run? Paul has never said that. Just because he believes we shouldn't be spending money we don't have to put forces where we don't need them (which is just as fiscally irresponsible and just as damaging to our economy as things like stimulus packages) doesn't mean we should run. It means we shouldn't babysit.
  
  Also, in regard to oil, he said we should work TOWARD being independent from foreign oil, and he said we should make use of the resources we have here in the States. If you actually think what he has said on this subject is unrealistic, then it's either because you wanted it to be, or because it went over your head. You're a smart guy, so I'm assuming the former.
  
  There's a difference between using foreign oil as long as we have to (while working toward alternatives in the meantime), and trying to gorge ourselves on it for as long as it exists, with no direction toward being independent.
  
  A funny thing when an American catches so much heat for wanting the country to be independent, given that independence is largely what the country was founded on.
  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote: As far as "independents" go, these people never vote as a block and are easily coerced. If you don't believe me, then look how our current moron got elected.

  Oh, I'm aware. I was talking about the actual numbers that have come out in virtually every single study. I was working with facts when I mentioned independents.
  
  It's obvious that the "swaying middle" changes direction regularly. It's how we end up with different political parties represented in the Executive and Legislative branches. The numbers, however, are saying that no candidate has a BETTER chance of ousting the current schmuck than Paul. Some studies show that any of the Republicans would beat him. Others say that almost none of them would beat him. The one who is most often top performer, and even occasionally projected to beat Obama when all the other current talking heads wouldn't, is Paul.
  

  BGFalcons82;899410 wrote:Strong leadership, a sense of doing the right things, and being a positive influence will win the day come November, 2012.

  If that's the case, the rest of the 'Pub candidates should start putting on their masks, because regardless of what the party itself thinks of them, their current statements and positions will be easily vilified before the public as a whole come November.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;899499 wrote:Shhhhhhhh........Speaking the truth can put you on Janet Napolitano's domestic terrorist watch list.

  It's like an obese man saying he has a huge appetite for bacon cheeseburgers, and trying to justify that he should never even attempt to work toward a more healthy diet.
• believer

  

  O-Trap;899504 wrote:Also, in regard to oil, he said we should work TOWARD being independent from foreign oil, and he said we should make use of the resources we have here in the States. If you actually think what he has said on this subject is unrealistic, then it's either because you wanted it to be, or because it went over your head. You're a smart guy, so I'm assuming the former.
  
  There's a difference between using foreign oil as long as we have to (while working toward alternatives in the meantime), and trying to gorge ourselves on it for as long as it exists, with no direction toward being independent.

  Generally ALL of the top candidates including Obama have more is less uttered these same beliefs.
  
  But then political realities set-in.
  
  What makes you believe Paul would be any different if by some political miracle he gets the nomination and has enough independent support to be elected POTUS?
  
  Because he's "stayed consistent" as you've pointed out? There's a huge difference between being another voice in the crowd vs. actually leading the choir.
  
  My guess is when push comes to shove, Paul would cave like everyone else.
• O-Trap

  

  believer;899517 wrote:Generally ALL of the top candidates including Obama have more is less uttered these same beliefs.
  
  But then political realities set-in.
  
  What makes you believe Paul would be any different if by some political miracle he gets the nomination and has enough independent support to be elected POTUS?
  
  Because he's "stayed consistent" as you've pointed out? There's a huge difference between being another voice in the crowd vs. actually leading the choir.
  
  My guess is when push comes to shove, Paul would cave like everyone else.

  While there is indeed a difference between being a voice in the choir and singing a solo (I do agree with you here), the fact that he hasn't folded in order to even get the solo gig would be a testament to the fact that he is an unconventional politician, and in a good way.
  
  He's been far too outspoken and far too strong-worded to cave without committing political suicide. If he folded after being this outspoken for this long, he might as well not even run for re-election. GHWB, on a lesser scale, had the "read my lips" issue to deal with, and which was likely one of the major reasons the swing voters went with Bubba from Arkansas. It would be substantially worse for Paul if he folded.
  
  Another point I mentioned before, but may be worth repeating, would be the fact that he's never voted in support of a pay raise for Congress. For those kinds of issues, one's voice would easily get lost among the masses, and so it would be easy to justify voting in a way to suit one's own personal agenda without too much of a fear of backlash. It appears that, even when the probability for catching heat was slim, he voted in a way that attests to him supporting what he ought to, even when the fear of backlash on him personally would be lessened.
  
  Ultimately, if you ask why I think he'd be different, it's because he already is different. It would have been MUCH easier for him to sacrifice principle to gain election years ago. If he was the self-seeking politician that we've come to expect all presidents to be, he likely would have done it by now, and not waited until he was 77 years old.
  
  Also, ultimately, such crumpling is what I expect out of the other candidates (on both sides) already, as they're trending in much the same way as prior presidents have done. They're walking like a duck and talking like a duck. Thus, if they get the nod and, eventually, the presidency, I expect them to be a duck.
  
  So far, that hasn't been the case with Paul. I, thus, certainly see him as the LEAST likely to not crumple to the system.
• believer

  

  ^^^I can appreciate your opinion. Like BG stated earlier I actually like Paul and most of his viewpoints. I admire his courage.
  
  But being a pragmatic conservative with a slightly twisted yet realistic awareness of the Beltway political machine, I'll always go with the most electable candidate who supposedly comes closest to my political views.
  
  Independents and Paulists helped create the unfortunate situation we now endure in DC. I'm not saying a McCain presidency would have been a utopia because he's definitely a liberal Republican. But I'm reasonably confident we wouldn't have had porkulus spending to the insane degree we've seen under Obama and we wouldn't have anything near the albatross known as ObamaKare on the horizon plaguing the economy and making businesses skittish.
  
  You can dream the Ron Paul dream, but I'm inclined to go with the odds and cut my losses.
• I Wear Pants

  believer;899499 wrote:Proof positive that the United States is heading in the wrong direction.

  Could you please elaborate?
• Ty Webb

  

  Paul wins Califorina Straw Poll
  http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/09/17/california.straw.poll/index.html
• Ty Webb

  

  Romney leads,Perry Trails President Obama
  
  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/2012_presidential_matchups
• O-Trap

  

  believer;900102 wrote:But being a pragmatic conservative with a slightly twisted yet realistic awareness of the Beltway political machine, I'll always go with the most electable candidate who supposedly comes closest to my political views.

  The problem is, that "pragmatism" is what has caused the Republican party to be little, if any, better than the Democrat party. Both are bankrupting the country.
  

  believer;900102 wrote: Independents and Paulists helped create the unfortunate situation we now endure in DC. I'm not saying a McCain presidency would have been a utopia because he's definitely a liberal Republican. But I'm reasonably confident we wouldn't have had porkulus spending to the insane degree we've seen under Obama and we wouldn't have anything near the albatross known as ObamaKare on the horizon plaguing the economy and making businesses skittish.

  Maybe. Maybe not. However, given the parties' track records, it's not inconceivable that he wouldn't be just as bad. Might have been bad in a different way, but that doesn't make it necessarily better.
  

  believer;900102 wrote: You can dream the Ron Paul dream, but I'm inclined to go with the odds and cut my losses.

  This is the problem. Paul is proving, over and over again, that he is able to win elections. The media, however, seems hell-bent on convincing people otherwise. It seems you're still buying into it.
  
  The fact is that he IS electable.
  
  Suppose, however, that he isn't. The two options we'd be faced with (based on the current crop) may be equally as problematic. One wants to spend trillions on social programs. The other seems bent on continuing to spend trillions on an absurdly bloated military being many places it needs not be.
  
  Neither party initially seemed interested in auditing the Federal Reserve, which has proven to have been incredibly wasteful and deceptive with the country's money as well.
  
  The what the Republican Party line has become, long term, is just as damaging as the Democrat Party line.