Who will be on the Republican Presidential ticket for 2012?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Close minded? Thats exactly what he wants to do, he has said him self that he is against the majoriyt of policies and regulations that built this country.. Good for you, but yet again what he is suggesting isn't the US what makes it bad OR good.. He is too extreme, to me he is hopelessly nieve in believing that the free market is infalleable.. Neither the government nor the private sector are perfect..

airshocker

You didn't even answer my question, dude.

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

Yes because having high numbers means he is a good governor :roll: regardless of the fact he has proven to have passed the execution of a INNOCENT man.. Sorry yet again this is why I will not respect the Republican base due to actions like this..

sSubZerOo

No, because he isn't wasting the State's money with keeping these people on death row, that's why I think he's a good governor. Mistakes will always happen concerning the death penalty, but it's a necessary evil.

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

sSubZerOo

ANSWER MY QUESTION. Not Ron Paul's. I asked you VERY SIMPLY, Do you think that maybe some of our problems are caused by having too much government?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Close minded? Thats exactly what he wants to do, he has said him self that he is against the majoriyt of policies and regulations that built this country.. Good for you, but yet again what he is suggesting isn't the US what makes it bad OR good.. He is too extreme, to me he is hopelessly nieve in believing that the free market is infalleable.. Neither the government nor the private sector are perfect..

sSubZerOo

You didn't even answer my question, dude.

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

airshocker

ANSWER MY QUESTION. Not Ron Paul's. I asked you VERY SIMPLY, Do you think that maybe some of our problems are caused by having too much government?

No, for the past 2 decades we have been actually deregulating in numerous areas.. Furthermore your oversimplifying problem, its a combination of bad regulations, too little regulations and perhapes too many regulations in a area.. And the things that people ***** about like the EPA were put in place due to a reactionary clear sign that the private sector does not care about certain things.. In the end of the day its a fine balance of the two.. Ron Paul is a extremist in this regard that would want the government toothless.. He is as bad as a hardcore socialist.. Your point is muchlike asking me if there is anything wrong with the house because you want to burn it down.. The government isn't perfect, neither is private sector.. What Ron Paul wants to do is literally destroy one more or less and put the other completely at the helm more or less..

Weirdly enough, as somebody who wants Obama to triumph over the Repubs in 2012, I wanted Pawlenty to win. He was such a limp candidate that Obama would steamroll over him. Atleast Palin and Bachmann have some kind of charisma. Santorum also is one that would be awesome for Obama to run against since he'd complicate the Repub message with social issues.

Of course Ron Paul would probably get killed by Obama even worse than Palin. It would be LBJ all over again. That being said, I wouldn't want there to be even a small chance on Ron Paul winning (same for Bachmann and Palin). I also think that Palin would degrade the political discourse even more if she was the nominee. I'm not a person who wants Palin to win just so Obama can beat her.

Who will actually be on the ticket? Either Perry or Romney will be the top of the ticket (this is a two man race) and I think it's possible that they choose eachother as VP to balance the ticket. Of course Romney might choose Huckabee as VP. That's what I would do. He has less liabilities than Perry and brings in many of the same voters.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

You didn't even answer my question, dude.

mingmao3046

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

Yet again just becuase he is knowledgeable doesn't mean he is right/that I should agree with him/etc etc.. His stance is entirely too extreme for my case, to me he is no better then a socialist.

hopefully ron paul, anyone else is more of the same.... not sure how on earth you guys support people like romneymingmao3046

I'd sooner support Romney than Paul since Romeny is not an idealistic/radical.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]I'm honestly confused how people support Ron Paul. I respect him in that he's got seemingly more integrity than most US politicians but a lot of his ideas aren't exactly beneficial to 95% of the country.airshocker

He merely advocates a vastly smaller government. Like, getting rid of FEMA and the Department of Education. Those aren't bad ideas. States are fully capable of coming up with their own disaster response plans and an agency to implement them. Likewise with education. If the federal government wants to help out, how about it gives block grants and let the States choose how they spend the money in those certain areas?

I think it's more distressing that people have an over-reliance on the Federal government and are completely unwilling to think about what a smaller, more efficient government could do.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]hopefully ron paul, anyone else is more of the same.... not sure how on earth you guys support people like romneymingmao3046

His foreign policy is naive. His opinions on the Bin Laden=a joke.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

airshocker

ANSWER MY QUESTION. Not Ron Paul's. I asked you VERY SIMPLY, Do you think that maybe some of our problems are caused by having too much government?

Some, probably but the problem is not with the institution of government. It's simply the people running it. There needs to be some serious campaign finance reform and lobbying reform before any issue can truly be addressed.

there is proof that perry executed an innocent man, I don't want anyone like that to be president

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Yes because having high numbers means he is a good governor :roll: regardless of the fact he has proven to have passed the execution of a INNOCENT man.. Sorry yet again this is why I will not respect the Republican base due to actions like this..

airshocker

No, because he isn't wasting the State's money with keeping these people on death row, that's why I think he's a good governor. Mistakes will always happen concerning the death penalty, but it's a necessary evil.

No it isn't. If he was really concerned about money, he would have the death penalty system BANNED.. Because it costs more money for death penalty trials than anything coming close to life in prison.. A necessary evil? Yeah because you know.. 1 innocent life < then housing them for life....:roll: Yeah no... These guys are going no where.. The death penalty doesn't some how make things "safer" either..

My prediction:

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]hopefully ron paul, anyone else is more of the same.... not sure how on earth you guys support people like romneyGreySeal9

I'd sooner support Romney than Paul since Romeny is not an idealistic/radical.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I'm honestly confused how people support Ron Paul. I respect him in that he's got seemingly more integrity than most US politicians but a lot of his ideas aren't exactly beneficial to 95% of the country.GreySeal9

His foreign policy is naive. His opinions on the Bin Laden=a joke.

No, for the past 2 decades we have been actually deregulating in numerous areas.. Furthermore your oversimplifying problem, its a combination of bad regulations, too little regulations and perhapes too many regulations in a area.. And the things that people ***** about like the EPA were put in place due to a reactionary clear sign that the private sector does not care about certain things.. In the end of the day its a fine balance of the two.. Ron Paul is a extremist in this regard that would want the government toothless.. He is as bad as a hardcore socialist.. Your point is muchlike asking me if there is anything wrong with the house because you want to burn it down.. The government isn't perfect, neither is private sector.. What Ron Paul wants to do is literally destroy one more or less and put the other completely at the helm more or less..

sSubZerOo

So too much government is never the problem? That's why I think you're close-minded. Even I can admit that sometimes not enough government is the problem.

No it isn't. If he was really concerned about money, he would have the death penalty system BANNED.. Because it costs more money for death penalty trials than anything coming close to life in prison.. A necessary evil? Yeah because you know.. 1 innocent life < then housing them for life....:roll: Yeah no... These guys are going no where.. The death penalty doesn't some how make things "safer" either..

sSubZerOo

Sorry, I believe that some people deserve to be put to death. It's only expensive because of the appeals and trial process.

On topic, if presidential candidate Romney was the same person as governor Romney, then I might support him. Romney was very much a rockefeller republican when he governed MA. Other than Huntsman and him, I view the rest of the candidates as nuts.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] foreign policy is undeniably the best of them all... he is a strict constitutionalist that believes in individual liberty and free markets he is most inline with the founding fathersmingmao3046

His foreign policy is naive. His opinions on the Bin Laden=a joke.

I didn't say that.

Ron Paul is naive because he suggested that we should have worked with Pakistan in getting Bin Laden.

Yet there are reasons that we acted unilaterally that Ron Paul is too naive and idealistic to fully comprehend.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

His foreign policy is naive. His opinions on the Bin Laden=a joke.

GreySeal9

I didn't say that.

Ron Paul is naive because he suggested that we should have worked with Pakistan in getting Bin Laden.

Yet there are reasons that we acted unilaterally that Ron Paul is too naive and idealistic to fully comprehend.

I look at your state level governments and they actually seem far worse than your federal. Wisconsin, California and Texas are some great examples of that. Fully capable of coming up with their own disaster response plans? Oh like Perry cutting 75% of the volunteer fire fighters budget so they had to fight the texas forest fires out of their own pocket. Then he even called for FEMA. Wisconsin is charging people for voting cards even though that's against the constitution, but it's seemingly fine because if you ASK for the card for free they'll give it to you. There's countless examples but no, a smaller government isn't going to solve your problems. Your countries problems aren't caused by too much government they're caused by an inefficient government who's interests lay more in that of corporations and big oil than it does in the interests of the people. Ace6301

I'm sure he wouldn't have to cut the budget if he didn't pay to pay for those pesky union benefits. You're going to have to show me something on Wisconsin, because I haven't heard about that, and don't even talk to me about California. That place isn't indicative of anything in the United States.

The fact of the matter is the States are fully capable of taking on certain burdens. Perhaps other burdens need to be eased first, but they are definitely capable. And I agree, our huge federal government is inefficient.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] naive? so you support mindlessly interfering in other countries and starting wars we cant afford?mingmao3046

I didn't say that.

Ron Paul is naive because he suggested that we should have worked with Pakistan in getting Bin Laden.

Yet there are reasons that we acted unilaterally that Ron Paul is too naive and idealistic to fully comprehend.

There's nothing wrong with working with our countries.

There is something wrong with working with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Their government is not trustworthy.

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I didn't say that.

Ron Paul is naive because he suggested that we should have worked with Pakistan in getting Bin Laden.

Yet there are reasons that we acted unilaterally that Ron Paul is too naive and idealistic to fully comprehend.

GreySeal9

There's nothing wrong with working with our countries.

There is something wrong with working with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Their government is not trustworthy.

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] Well considering Ron Paul is the only one that actively states he would outright end the wars and bring all troops home... and whats so bad about working with other countries?mingmao3046

There's nothing wrong with working with our countries.

There is something wrong with working with Pakistan to get Bin Laden. Their government is not trustworthy.

I wouldn't vote for him because I adamantly disagree with his vision for this country, but Ron Paul's comments on the Bin Laden makes me think his idealism is off the charts.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] foreign policy is undeniably the best of them all... he is a strict constitutionalist that believes in individual liberty and free markets he is most inline with the founding fathersmingmao3046

It is well known that I don't think too highly of the masses when it comes to politics and voting (being educated voters). But even with that said, I still find it very hard to believe that Perry will get the nomination (given his record when it comes to education, his divisiveness even in his own party, his contempt for the US government, his extreme beliefs, etc). Do not cause me to lose what little faith I have left America, please... Signed, Concerned Texanrawsavon

run paul vs whoever thats where i put my money.

my reasoning is this.. ron paul aint shook..

even though perry got all up in his grill. had i been ron at this very momment i would have (after he let go of my arm) done this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JAa3NvP6f4&feature=related

Who I want: Palin/West

Who I think: Palin/Rubio

The gay conservative has spoken. :p

I want Huntsmen/Romney. I don't want Romney as President because he is too flippy floppy, but I think he would make a decent VP. Of course, a republican is gonna have a really hard time beating Obama for my vote atleast, and it will be impossible with Hunstmen.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Close minded? Thats exactly what he wants to do, he has said him self that he is against the majoriyt of policies and regulations that built this country.. Good for you, but yet again what he is suggesting isn't the US what makes it bad OR good.. He is too extreme, to me he is hopelessly nieve in believing that the free market is infalleable.. Neither the government nor the private sector are perfect..

sSubZerOo

You didn't even answer my question, dude.

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

I don't know if that means the media WANTS him to win. MSNBC sure doesn't. Actually, maybe they do with the recent pollings that Americans think he's too extreme.

airshocker

Do want: Paul/Johnson

Think: Perry/Cain

after reconsidering I think a Palin/Karger ticket is in order.

Want: Huntsman/somebody who can rally base w/o throttling the campaign.

Think: Either Perry/someone crazy or Romney/Someone who is probably not crazy.

Hard to be specific with VPs.

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me" RandoIph

I don't think Perry said that. I googled the quote because I thought it was way too stupid for someone actually running for President would say and it seems like it's an urban legend that's been attributed to a few southern politicians over the years.

I still basically agree with what you said though.

I'm of the opinion that no matter who the GOP selects, Obama is going to have an easy ride for 2012. I'm certainly going to be hoping that fervently if Perry gets the nomination. He's bad enough as my governor, I think I'd leave the country if he became my President.

Seems like a toss-up between bland and crazy. Oh doze wacky weepubwicans!!! :P

Sarah Palin's gonna take over the world :)

Count Dracula.

gingrich would be a great president. perry sounds good too.

perry sounds good too.

ristactionjakso

[QUOTE="ristactionjakso"] perry sounds good too.

rawsavon

there is a website about perry's beliefs. Although I will say I don't agree with everything on the website, but I do agree with him a lot more than I do Obama.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

You didn't even answer my question, dude.

captainexploder

How can I when he literally wants to take apart the FOUNDATIONS of the modern United States.. The only point reference we can look at before this are times like the early 1900s and late 1800s.. Those were not good times.. For the average citizen compared to today.. His standing is quite honestly as bad as the people who preach socialism... They are two sides of the same coin of extremes.

The US is what it is today based on the foundations.. Including it becoming a super power.. People seem to want to blame everything negative upon the government, while at the same time disregard the government of having anything to do with the US's rise to economic power..