Romney's camp says it is over. Santorum's camp says they have a chance and that Gingrich should drop out. NOBODY OTHER THAN RON PAUL SAYS HE CAN WIN.
A few questions for people that know a lot more about politics than me:
1. Is Romney THAT obvious of a winner? Is it all but official that he will be the nominee? If it is, are the other three only in it for the money they will make?
2. Does Santorum have a chance? If so, would it require the other three to drop out?
3. Does the long list of remaining candidates help the eventual nominee or hurt him in the long run?
4. Why is Ron Paul still in? Mathematically, isn't it impossible?
BTW-The current delegate count is:
Romney- 470
Santorum- 238
Gingrich- 124
Paul -47
Paul should quit but wont.
Doesnt matter anyways because Pauls voters will only vote for him and noone else.
Gingrich should drop out now that hes in the situation he's in.
If he does Santorums number will climb greatly.
Problem is many believe Santorum cant beat Obama, while they think Romney can....so pick your poison.
Because we have a free country and if someone wants to keep running good for them
^Smarty pants.
I meant what logical reason? From your reasoning why aren't Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman and the Utah guy still in it?
^$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If you can raise it you can stay in
^I just wish the Ron Paul supporters could see that. If I am not mistaken, he would have to sweep every winner-take-all state and win convincingly in many other states. He is obviously in it for the money his people will raise. I do believe he wants party change and Washington change, but he is proving that he isn't very effective in making that change because voters are not responding.
LWC Wrote:^I just wish the Ron Paul supporters could see that. If I am not mistaken, he would have to sweep every winner-take-all state and win convincingly in many other states. He is obviously in it for the money his people will raise. I do believe he wants party change and Washington change, but he is proving that he isn't very effective in making that change because voters are not responding.
Is this in the works?
A ticket with:
President--------------Santorum
Vice President---------Gingrich
Sec. of the Treasury---Paul
LWC Wrote:^I just wish the Ron Paul supporters could see that. If I am not mistaken, he would have to sweep every winner-take-all state and win convincingly in many other states. He is obviously in it for the money his people will raise. I do believe he wants party change and Washington change, but he is proving that he isn't very effective in making that change because voters are not responding.
I disagree with you here: who started the tea party... I believe that it can be traced back to Ron Paul have you read his book Revolution? I hope he stays in it... he is the only republican I would vote for... the republicrats in DC make me sick... so I support Paul....if he does not win.... I will vote for Ted Johnson... I think that is his name.
I wish the republicans could really see themselves as what they are clones of the democrats... which is fine, but just admit what you are and go on.... Republicans had control of the house, senate, white house... budget doubled... bailouts, for a group that believes in free markets... what a joke!!!
I at least respect the Democrats, they are honest, take someone elses money spend it, they make no bones about it... Republicans do it, they just lie about and turn everything into a moral issue.
Libertarian Party is where it is at.... true liberty, personal responsiblity, personal freedom, personal choices, financially and morally.
P.M. me if you would like to join!
inglepar
tvtimeout Wrote:I disagree with you here: who started the tea party... I believe that it can be traced back to Ron Paul have you read his book Revolution? I hope he stays in it... he is the only republican I would vote for... the republicrats in DC make me sick... so I support Paul....if he does not win.... I will vote for Ted Johnson... I think that is his name.
I wish the republicans could really see themselves as what they are clones of the democrats... which is fine, but just admit what you are and go on.... Republicans had control of the house, senate, white house... budget doubled... bailouts, for a group that believes in free markets... what a joke!!!
I at least respect the Democrats, they are honest, take someone elses money spend it, they make no bones about it... Republicans do it, they just lie about and turn everything into a moral issue.
Libertarian Party is where it is at.... true liberty, personal responsiblity, personal freedom, personal choices, financially and morally.
P.M. me if you would like to join!inglepar
I am a libertarian but the Libertarian Party is a joke. If you think that any of the Republicans who are running would make as bad a president as Barack Obama or that they would implement a similar agenda to the one that he has been pushing for over three years, you just are not paying attention.
The Libertarian Party needs to focus on electing people to local and state offices and establish something that looks like an organization. As far as a presidential candidate, they lost all credibility with me when they recruited Bob Barr to run at the top of their ticket. That was a real slap in the face of the real libertarians who had worked for years to build the party. If a party cannot find a credible candidate within its own rank, then it is not a credible party, IMO.
A vote for the Libertarian candidate will be a vote for Obama. I don't see how a true libertarian could cast such a vote.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am a libertarian but the Libertarian Party is a joke. If you think that any of the Republicans who are running would make as bad a president as Barack Obama or that they would implement a similar agenda to the one that he has been pushing for over three years, you just are not paying attention.
The Libertarian Party needs to focus on electing people to local and state offices and establish something that looks like an organization. As far as a presidential candidate, they lost all credibility with me when they recruited Bob Barr to run at the top of their ticket. That was a real slap in the face of the real libertarians who had worked for years to build the party. If a party cannot find a credible candidate within its own rank, then it is not a credible party, IMO.
A vote for the Libertarian candidate will be a vote for Obama. I don't see how a true libertarian could cast such a vote.
Are you a registard Libertarian? It has nothing to do with the point you are conveying... I am just curious.
Second, I respectfully disagree, not that my vote is worthless, but, I still must vote my conscious... If I vote my opinion... which shows discontent with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party...that is what I will do!
The line of thinking...well your guy is not going to win so go for the less evil... is not a logical choice for me. Either way it is still evil.
I will agree Bob Barr was a poor choice.
tvtimeout Wrote:Are you a registard Libertarian? It has nothing to do with the point you are conveying... I am just curious.
Second, I respectfully disagree, not that my vote is worthless, but, I still must vote my conscious... If I vote my opinion... which shows discontent with the Republican Party and the Democrat Party...that is what I will do!
The line of thinking...well your guy is not going to win so go for the less evil... is not a logical choice for me. Either way it is still evil.
I will agree Bob Barr was a poor choice.
I don't think that Virginia requires or allows party registration. I was once registered as a Libertarian but until the party matures and is able to field more credible candidates, I will not repeat that mistake. I believe that there are many more libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party than are members.
Unless one believes in all of a candidate's positions - something that has never happened in my case - one always votes for the lesser of two evils, or if you prefer the greater of two goods.
Barack Obama is a socialist. In other words, he is about as far from a libertarian as a candidate can possibly get. If you don't vote or vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, I don't understand how that is anything but a vote against libertarian values. As for voting one's conscience, I cannot in good conscience cast any vote that would help Obama strip me of more of the liberties that the US Constitution is supposed to protect.
Another way of looking at this issue is that allowing socialists like Obama pull the country further down the road toward a totalitarian state will make it less likely that a true libertarian will ever win the White House and even if one is elected, they will have a much more difficult task of restoring our freedom.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:I don't think that Virginia requires or allows party registration. I was once registered as a Libertarian but until the party matures and is able to field more credible candidates, I will not repeat that mistake. I believe that there are many more libertarians who are not members of the Libertarian Party than are members.
Unless one believes in all of a candidate's positions - something that has never happened in my case - one always votes for the lesser of two evils, or if you prefer the greater of two goods.
Barack Obama is a socialist. In other words, he is about as far from a libertarian as a candidate can possibly get. If you don't vote or vote for a candidate who has no chance of winning, I don't understand how that is anything but a vote against libertarian values. As for voting one's conscience, I cannot in good conscience cast any vote that would help Obama strip me of more of the liberties that the US Constitution is supposed to protect.
Another way of looking at this issue is that allowing socialists like Obama pull the country further down the road toward a totalitarian state will make it less likely that a true libertarian will ever win the White House and even if one is elected, they will have a much more difficult task of restoring our freedom.
To me I see the socialist on the right and left, therefore, I will not vote for either. The 2008 bailouts were a joke... big oil substities... a joke, as are all substities....miiltary industrial complex... joke...
believing in the idea of liberty of choice both personally and fiscally priceless...
Again, I respect all opinions on here, just think the republicrats and democains are one and the same....
Quating from the man "...every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government. The supposedly conservative candidate tells us about wast in the government and ticks off $10 million in frivolous pork barrel projects that outrage him.... Conservatives are told that they must support these candidates and so they do hoping for the best. And nothing changes".
The Revolution: A manifesto: Ron Paul published 2008.
I agree with the above statement.
tvtimeout Wrote:To me I see the socialist on the right and left, therefore, I will not vote for either. The 2008 bailouts were a joke... big oil substities... a joke, as are all substities....miiltary industrial complex... joke...
believing in the idea of liberty of choice both personally and fiscally priceless...
Again, I respect all opinions on here, just think the republicrats and democains are one and the same....
Quating from the man "...every four years we are treated to the same tired, predictable routine: two candidates with few disagreements on fundamentals pretend that they represent dramatically different philosophies of government. The supposedly conservative candidate tells us about wast in the government and ticks off $10 million in frivolous pork barrel projects that outrage him.... Conservatives are told that they must support these candidates and so they do hoping for the best. And nothing changes".
The Revolution: A manifesto: Ron Paul published 2008.
I agree with the above statement.
For a libertarian, you seem to be accepting much of the Democratic talking points without question. Big oil companies are not subsidized by taxpayers and their average profit margins are under 10 percent - far lower than those of many other major industries. The most recently update estimate of this year's budget deficit is about $1.2 trillion - the fourth straight annual deficit of more than $1 trillion.
I agree that Bush and the Republicans were big spenders when they had control of both houses of Congress but if you compare the deficits during those years, you cannot possibly believe that there is no difference in fiscal responsibility between the two major parties. In Obama's first, and hopefully last, term the federal government will accumulate 1/3 of the national debt. Our current per capita debt is substantially more than that of Greece.
I could understand an anarchist supporting Obama but if our economy collapses, the pace of change will accelerate and libertarians will not like the changes any better than mainstream Republicans. Neither will mainstream liberals.
Romney will stand no chance against Obama.
Paul is not gonna run on a ticket with Romney.
Santorum is even worse, he is a complete moron.
Other than a few minor disagreements on some social issues that the President has very little control over, they are the same candidate. If Im gonna live in a socialist country I at least would like to have a socialist running it. If Paul is not the candidate might as well go with the guy who has experience and is already in office. Of course I wont vote for him, but Ill be even more disappointed if that idiot Romney wins. Romney is no good for America. Neither is Obama. The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't.
^Even if what you say about Romney were true - and it isn't - there is a huge difference between Obama and Romney that you are totally ignoring. If Romney is elected, his base of core supporters will include a legion of conservative voters who will vote for him to rid the White House of a man that we (conservatives) know is a socialists. In other words, Romney will not get elected without a good turnout by conservative voters and those voters will be applying pressure to Obama from the right. As we have already seen, Obama is most responsive to the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party - voters to whom Romney would owe no favors.
I am no Romney fan myself but people who say that there is no difference between a hard core socialist like Obama and a candidate who has made a fortune as a capitalist have no idea what they are talking about. Romney is no conservative but he is no socialist either. He pandered to the socialists of Massachusetts, but conservatives and moderates represent a heavy majority of the voters who will support him in November. Romney would either work to reward those voters for supporting him or he would face a primary challenge in 2016.
My hope is that Gingrich withdraws from the race, endorses Santorum, and actively campaigns to elect him. If that happens, then I think that there is still a good chance that Romney will be denied the nomination. If Romney gets the nomination, then very few Republicans or libertarians will line up to vote for Obama.
This is the standard that I would vote for...
"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as "free enterprise". I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world, liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it out to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to the same thing. Robert Taft
I would then ask about foreign policy they would follow this advice " The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commerical relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.. why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why be interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entagle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest humor or caprice?"
George Washington.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall beunfurled, there will her heart, her benedication and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, hse would involve herself beyond the power of extricationm in all the wars of insterest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force... she might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirt.
John Quincy Adams
If you could find a candadate that holds these ideals up... I would vote for him.... wait there is one and only one...
Ron Paul
tvtimeout Wrote:This is the standard that I would vote for...
"When I say liberty I do not simply mean what is referred to as "free enterprise". I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and to live; the liberty of the family to decide how they wish to live, what they want to eat for breakfast and for dinner, and how they wish to spend their time; liberty of a man to develop his ideas and get other people to teach those ideas, if he can convince them that they have some value to the world, liberty of every local community to decide how its children shall be educated, how its local services shall be run, and who its local leaders shall be; liberty of a man to choose his own occupation; and liberty of a man to run his own business as he thinks it out to be run, as long as he does not interfere with the right of other people to the same thing. Robert Taft
I would then ask about foreign policy they would follow this advice " The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commerical relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.. why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why be interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entagle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest humor or caprice?"
George Washington.
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall beunfurled, there will her heart, her benedication and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, hse would involve herself beyond the power of extricationm in all the wars of insterest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force... she might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirt.
John Quincy Adams
If you could find a candadate that holds these ideals up... I would vote for him.... wait there is one and only one...
Ron Paul
Ron Paul will not be on the ballot. Vote for him if you want. Rationalize your vote however you want but if you vote for anybody but the Republican candidate you will share the responsibility of giving Obama as second term if he wins and no candidate in the history of presidential elections has professed beliefs further removed from than those of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson than Obama.
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Ron Paul will not be on the ballot. Vote for him if you want. Rationalize your vote however you want but if you vote for anybody but the Republican candidate you will share the responsibility of giving Obama as second term if he wins and no candidate in the history of presidential elections has professed beliefs further removed from than those of Washington, Adams, and Jefferson than Obama.
I will never be a neo-con!!! You can try to turn me to the dark side:lmao:
tvtimeout Wrote:I will never be a neo-con!!! You can try to turn me to the dark side:lmao:
Maybe not but you will be a de facto socialist if you help Obama get reelected. As Edmund Burke said, "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." Sitting out the election or voting for a non-viable candidate like Ron Paul is doing nothing.
Obama will be President, you might as well learn to deal with it.
[YOUTUBE="Conservative Christian, Right Wing Republican"]si0WTCMrksw[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE="How to speak republican"]qXk4P12p1tU&feature[/YOUTUBE]
It's getting close to time to stop 'slow dancing' as Ross Perot used to say, and settle on a nominee. The process has revealed enough about the candidates to convince me Romney will make a good presidential candidate. I realize the Obama War Room is running scenarios ala cold war nuclear strategies on all three remaining viable candidates. With Newt bringing up an unlikely rear, only Santorum and Romney are likely being taken seriously. No matter who gets the nomination they will suffer the worst barrage of lies and slander in history.
Given that inescapable reality, I believe Romney to be the strongest candidate. He will need to be able to endure the onslaught of personal attack and record twisting with a degree of calm. There is more than ample cannon fodder perpetrated on the nation from the Obama camp. From prosecuting illegal wars to the so called Affordable Health Care Act and literally hundreds of damaging quotes, in and out of country. Further, his calling for skyrocketing electricity prices and 5 dollar a gallon gasoline, vetoing the Canadian Pipeling and a general bent for the Europeanization of the United States will be enough to unseat him. Let alone his failed foreign policies. I believe Romney will be able to stick to talking about failed policies and that will carry the day for the republicans.
I'm still behind Santorum. If Romney gets the nomination, I'll be in his camp. But until then, I believe that Santorum can, and will, win it.
I'm still behind Paul... Vaundy 33 I respect that you don't listen to the neo cons and get your marching orders from "Fair and Balance"...
TheRealThing Wrote:It's getting close to time to stop 'slow dancing' as Ross Perot used to say, and settle on a nominee. The process has revealed enough about the candidates to convince me Romney will make a good presidential candidate. I realize the Obama War Room is running scenarios ala cold war nuclear strategies on all three remaining viable candidates. With Newt bringing up an unlikely rear, only Santorum and Romney are likely being taken seriously. No matter who gets the nomination they will suffer the worst barrage of lies and slander in history.
Given that inescapable reality, I believe Romney to be the strongest candidate. He will need to be able to endure the onslaught of personal attack and record twisting with a degree of calm. There is more than ample cannon fodder perpetrated on the nation from the Obama camp. From prosecuting illegal wars to the so called Affordable Health Care Act and literally hundreds of damaging quotes, in and out of country. Further, his calling for skyrocketing electricity prices and 5 dollar a gallon gasoline, vetoing the Canadian Pipeling and a general bent for the Europeanization of the United States will be enough to unseat him. Let alone his failed foreign policies. I believe Romney will be able to stick to talking about failed policies and that will carry the day for the republicans.
I think you mean the republicrats
tvtimeout Wrote:I think you mean the republicrats
No, I said what I meant. In a perfect world republicans and democrats would espouse the traditional views that characterized the American ideal of the 1950's thru the 1980's. Instead, republicans have admittedly moderated to the left somewhat, and democrats have become left wing extremists willing to say or do anything to get in a position of power and are known to readily put party ahead of country to that end.
The relentless attacks of the democrats toward the republicans have put the republicans in the position of defending themselves against these unceasing, and usually false charges made by the liberal democrats. This has had the effect of making republicans 'look' bad trying to defend their party. Anybody knows, the individual or group engaged in self defense is ALWAYS made to look petty, while any charge made by the accuser is generally believed by most observing the (in the case of state and federal politics) media exacerbated melee. It's a school yard tactic, and it works just as well when grown ups do it on the national level.
Unlike you however, I prefer to cast my vote in the direction that will actually have some impact in real terms on the national/world scene rather than cast a meaningless ballot, meant to show some symbolic conscientious objection to politics as they exist. The republicans have moderated. But, like the dollar bill, though moderated worth-wise is still the best option to make a purchase, the republican is still the best option to lead this land. The reason? They still most closely adhere to the traditional values that this country was built upon.
TheRealThing Wrote:No, I said what I meant. In a perfect world republicans and democrats would espouse the traditional views that characterized the American ideal of the 1950's thru the 1980's. Instead, republicans have admittedly moderated to the left somewhat, and democrats have become left wing extremists willing to say or do anything to get in a position of power and are known to readily put party ahead of country to that end.
The relentless attacks of the democrats toward the republicans have put the republicans in the position of defending themselves against these unceasing, and usually false charges made by the liberal democrats. This has had the effect of making republicans 'look' bad trying to defend their party. Anybody knows, the individual or group engaged in self defense is ALWAYS made to look petty, while any charge made by the accuser is generally believed by most observing the (in the case of state and federal politics) media exacerbated melee. It's a school yard tactic, and it works just as well when grown ups do it on the national level.
Unlike you however, I prefer to cast my vote in the direction that will actually have some impact in real terms on the national/world scene rather than cast a meaningless ballot, meant to show some symbolic conscientious objection to politics as they exist. The republicans have moderated. But, like the dollar bill, though moderated worth-wise is still the best option to make a purchase, the republican is still the best option to lead this land. The reason? They still most closely adhere to the traditional values that this country was built upon.
I am little confussed by this statement....and I really am not trying to be a smart... are you talking about since the 1950s or since the founding of the country?
If you are talking about since the 50s the military industrial complex has taken over the Republican Party.
If you are talking about since the founding of the country, I would agree.
Personal Choice and Personal Freedom, See Pennslyvania for this example, fex taxes (see constitution before the additional of admendments), see the stance our founding fathers took on debt,war, and foreign policy. (Thomas Jefferson and Washingoton) would be the best to follow here.
My vote is for Ron Paul... to me he is the only one that stands for these ideals in which I believe in... not any other canadiate.
TheRealThing Wrote:It's getting close to time to stop 'slow dancing' as Ross Perot used to say, and settle on a nominee. The process has revealed enough about the candidates to convince me Romney will make a good presidential candidate. I realize the Obama War Room is running scenarios ala cold war nuclear strategies on all three remaining viable candidates. With Newt bringing up an unlikely rear, only Santorum and Romney are likely being taken seriously. No matter who gets the nomination they will suffer the worst barrage of lies and slander in history.
Given that inescapable reality, I believe Romney to be the strongest candidate. He will need to be able to endure the onslaught of personal attack and record twisting with a degree of calm. There is more than ample cannon fodder perpetrated on the nation from the Obama camp. From prosecuting illegal wars to the so called Affordable Health Care Act and literally hundreds of damaging quotes, in and out of country. Further, his calling for skyrocketing electricity prices and 5 dollar a gallon gasoline, vetoing the Canadian Pipeling and a general bent for the Europeanization of the United States will be enough to unseat him. Let alone his failed foreign policies. I believe Romney will be able to stick to talking about failed policies and that will carry the day for the republicans.
The southern section of that pipeline is beginning as we speak.
Of the 25 gas stations closest to my home, the cheapest price for gasoline is now $3.999/gal. Nationally, the average price has risen 1.7 cents in the last 24 hours. The price is now 33 cents higher than it was one year ago today. Those of you who do not believe that Americans will be extremely angry at Obama's lack of a rational energy plan and his war on carbon are living in a dream world.
The reason why none of the remaining candidates are eager to get out of the race is that the election will potentially be a Republican landslide. The last president who was reelected with the economy being as big a mess as the Obama economy was FDR and Obama is no FDR.