Ohio Chatter DEV

O-Trap

Speaking of Paul's foreign policy, I had to post this again. Best speech I've heard in years ( music notwithstanding).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

Ty Webb

Perry has looked shitty in his first three debates.....he may be in risk of letting this slip of of his hands

Ty Webb

This is coming from me....so take it with a grain of salt...but if I was a Republican...this would be my top three of who would have the chance to beat the President:

1.Paul
2.Huntsman
3.Romney

I Wear Pants

sleeper;907982 wrote:I would have booed him too. Your sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything other than who you want to have sex with. It shouldn't give you any special benefits or preferential treatment, nor should it prevent you from serving your country. It was a bad question, and he clearly just wanted special attention.

In what way did they want special attention? The question was would they reinstate DADT. Santorum would because he hates gays. He says its because sex shouldn't be involved with the military but DADT not being there doesn't mean gay people will be fucking in the military. It just means they can say they're gay without being discharged.

I Wear Pants

ccrunner609;908214 wrote:I never thought that being gay should be a reason to discharge someone but for sure being gay shouldnt give you more rights then the other soldiers. I would use DODT and take out the discharge part.

How is what is current (with DADT repealed) giving gay soldiers more rights than straight soldiers?

sleeper

I Wear Pants;908202 wrote:In what way did they want special attention? The question was would they reinstate DADT. Santorum would because he hates gays. He says its because sex shouldn't be involved with the military but DADT not being there doesn't mean gay people will be ****ing in the military. It just means they can say they're gay without being discharged.

Because when/if he's discharged for being a terrible soldier(can you imagine fairies fighting the war for us?), he'll claim its because he's gay and file a lawsuit. Its a dumb question, we don't care if you are gay, we have other problems to deal with.

I Wear Pants

sleeper;908261 wrote:Because when/if he's discharged for being a terrible soldier(can you imagine fairies fighting the war for us?), he'll claim its because he's gay and file a lawsuit. Its a dumb question, we don't care if you are gay, we have other problems to deal with.

And he'll lose that case if he was actually a terrible soldier.

Santorum isn't one of the "we don't care if you're gay" people. He cares, a lot.

JU-ICE

Chris Christie to decide in a couple of days if he will get in the race or not.

O-Trap

ccrunner609;908214 wrote: I would use DODT and take out the discharge part.

ccrunner609;908491 wrote:As for DODT.....

DODT?

Don't Osculate; Don't Tell?

O-Trap

ccrunner609;908515 wrote:well played

*bows*

Ty Webb

ccrunner609;908491 wrote:He stands no chance at all.

As for DODT.....the reason why we have/had that was because at some point it was needed to protect the military

IMO....way too late for him to get in the race....plus he will get drilled by the others candidates for flip-flopping on runnning or not

Ty Webb

Cain upsets Perry as winner of Florida straw poll

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/24/cain-upsets-perry-as-winner-of-florida-straw-poll/

I know President Obama's numbers are low...but he may win by default

BGFalcons82

Ty Webb;909475 wrote:Cain upsets Perry as winner of Florida straw poll

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/24/cain-upsets-perry-as-winner-of-florida-straw-poll/

I know President Obama's numbers are low...but he may win by default

You slammin Herman, Ty? I hope not. He's got great ideas on how to re-start our economy and lead from the front. I'd love to see him debate Barry. Wouldn't be close.

BGFalcons82

ccrunner609;908491 wrote:He stands no chance at all.

Bullbutter, cc. He would likely keep Barry under 150 electoral votes. No contest if he runs.

As a matter of fact, regarding the comments about him flip-flopping on whether to run or not, he's actually played it out quite well. He can claim that he must run as he's been drafted by his party and the country needs a strong leader right now. He's allowed to change his mind, isn't he? Barry has changed positions so many times the calculator can't keep up with him.

sleeper

Pretty cool that Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll convincingly. I hope Perry realizes he's no better than Romney and they both drop out of the race.

O-Trap

BGFalcons82;909639 wrote:Barry has changed positions so many times the calculator can't keep up with him.

We're in more military conflicts now than when he took office. Given that he was beating a drum of getting out of the countries we were in at the time, I'd say his actions indicate he's changed his tune about that, at least.

sleeper;909654 wrote:Pretty cool that Herman Cain won the Florida straw poll convincingly. I hope Perry realizes he's no better than Romney and they both drop out of the race.

Reps.

HitsRus

I don't think either of those mentioned above are hurt nor will they drop....the straw poll in Florida was bad news for Michelle Bachman, however. The vaccination fiasco has left her dead in the water and unviable as a candidate.

I am glad to see Cain get some attention...he could be a very, very strong candidate.

jhay78

Cleveland Buck;908007 wrote:Paul has said that he won't run as a third party candidate, but his supporters aren't going to vote for an establishment Republican that is no better than Obama. That is at least 10% of Republican primary voters that won't just vote for whoever has the R by their name. None of the other candidates beat Obama with independants, and if that candidate also loses 10% of Republicans, how are they going to beat Obama?

And you can vote for whoever you want, but of all the reasons not to vote for Paul, that one is pretty ridiculous. If his joke about Kucinich weighs that heavily on your mind then you deserve to vote for Romney and wonder what happened when we invade Iran to try and galvanize a country that is starving because our dollars won't buy food anymore.

The joke about Kucinich was the last of a long line of reasons why Paul isn't my candidate among the Republican field, reasons which are well-documented among other posters on this thread:

1. I'm a war-mongering, chicken-hawking, imperialist, interventionist neo-con who can't wait to spend trillions invading other countries and blowing stuff up and killing innocent civilians.
(Just kidding- I couldn't resist.)

1. Chief among them is his naivete regarding American foreign policy, that if we simply reduce our military presence overseas and withdraw aid from Israel our enemies will all of a sudden want to hold hands with us.
Most of us agree that waste and overspending need to be dealt with in the military budget (as in all areas of the budget), but I don't think I've heard any of the Republican candidates clamoring for an increase in the military budget or calling for an invasion of Iran or any other country.

2. Related to #1 is his comments regarding 9/11. Most of us know the difference between assigning "blame" for 9/11 and explaining reasons why it happened. But I'm not sure his comments don't actually blame American implicitly. For example, he says that 15 or so of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and were pissed that we propped and supported the sharia government for so long, so naturally the next step to correct such heinous injustices was to murder thousands of innocent civilians. By assigning a specific reason for the hijackers actions, he is indirectly explaining away some of their guilt. In other words, it's not good enough to call them sicko mass-murderers; we also have to point out how much America sucks in the process.

He kind of alluded to this in the CNN debate before Wolf Blitzer cut him off. He was describing the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and near the end he said something like, "I'm sure you would be annoyed . . . " if something like that happened. My take from that was that some of the hostility toward America on the part of the hijackers was justified. That stance from a Presidential candidate is unacceptable to me.

3. It's also annoying to read his quotes over the years, and read quotes from some of his closest advisors, bashing every prominent conservative that has ever held office or been respected as a prominent thinker over the past 30 years. Reagan, Bill Buckley, Antonin Scalia, Sarah Palin, pretty much every conservative talk radio personality, etc, etc. Now nobody's claiming these are perfect or have a monopoly on true conservatism, but when you eliminate every conservative bashed by Paul or someone closely associated with him, you're left with no one but- you guessed it- Ron Paul.

I know, I know, Ron Paul invented the Tea Party, Ron Paul wrote the Constitution, etc, etc.

I will say this- even though he's not my candidate, I would still in a heartbeat vote for him in the general election vs. Obama, as I would any of the candidates in the Republican field. I just can't wrap my arms around the reasons for labeling all of the other candidates as establishment Republicans unworthy of a vote vs. Obama, or unable to defeat Obama in the general election. I agree Romney is probably the worst of the bunch, but to lump all the others into his class is inaccurate and misleading.

I'm not putting too much stock in the polls right now. Reagan was tied with Carter at this point in the process in '79, and he went on to win a 44-state landslide. I'm just not feeling the "Ron Paul or go-down-in-flames-in-a-blaze-of-glory-with-a-3rd-party-candidate" attitude.

believer

jhay78;909778 wrote:I know, I know, Ron Paul invented the Tea Party, Ron Paul wrote the Constitution, etc, etc.

I had to chuckle at that one.

jhay78;909778 wrote:I will say this- even though he's not my candidate, I would still in a heartbeat vote for him in the general election vs. Obama, as I would any of the candidates in the Republican field. I just can't wrap my arms around the reasons for labeling all of the other candidates as establishment Republicans unworthy of a vote vs. Obama, or unable to defeat Obama in the general election. I agree Romney is probably the worst of the bunch, but to lump all the others into his class is inaccurate and misleading.

I'm not putting too much stock in the polls right now. Reagan was tied with Carter at this point in the process in '79, and he went on to win a 44-state landslide. I'm just not feeling the "Ron Paul or go-down-in-flames-in-a-blaze-of-glory-with-a-3rd-party-candidate" attitude.

In my opinion, this line of thinking is partially responsible for the fact that we're enduring an Obama presidency. The Paulists - the very people who have a particularly extreme loathing of what BHO represents - helped tip the scale in his favor in the last election.

Romney is cut out of the same liberal Republican mold as McCain but I would vote for Romney....or Paul.....or even Bachmann in a heartbeat to help prevent this country from seeing an Obama second term.

Ty Webb

Anyone who thinks President Obama would be held under 150 EC votes are fucking insane. Three states would get him to almost 130. Imo..Christie cant beat him..have you seen how unpopular he is in New Jersey

believer

Ty Webb;909891 wrote:...have you seen how unpopular he is in New Jersey

Christie is as unpopular with the NJ liberal elite as Obama is with the American people.

fish82

Ty Webb;909891 wrote:Anyone who thinks President Obama would be held under 150 EC votes are ****ing insane. Three states would get him to almost 130. Imo..Christie cant beat him..have you seen how unpopular he is in New Jersey

Dude...New Jersey is one of the five bluest states in the farking country, and he's still at 46-47% approval. His standing in Jersey has zero to do with his national electability.

BGFalcons82

Ty Webb;909891 wrote:Anyone who thinks President Obama would be held under 150 EC votes are fucking insane. Three states would get him to almost 130. Imo..Christie cant beat him..have you seen how unpopular he is in New Jersey

One of your 3 states is New York. How much Obama-lovin did they show earlier this month in the blue-est of the blue-est districts in America? Go ahead, take NY for granted. How many Jewish voters are there, again?

As fish noted, having 47% popularity in NJ is still pretty good. By the way, it's still higher than Obama's popularity in the other 49.

Signed,

Mr. Insane

Ty Webb

BGFalcons82;909921 wrote:One of your 3 states is New York. How much Obama-lovin did they show earlier this month in the blue-est of the blue-est districts in America? Go ahead, take NY for granted. How many Jewish voters are there, again?

As fish noted, having 47% popularity in NJ is still pretty good. By the way, it's still higher than Obama's popularity in the other 49.

Signed,

Mr. Insane

You saying Obama won't win New York is like me saying that Perry would lose Texas.....ain't gonna happen

Ty Webb

Has anyone heard how much longer it is going to take Christie to decide?

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012