Post: 2012 Republican Presidential Primaries
Options
01-12-2012, 09:20 PM
#1
pspgamer77
Brute
Comment saying who you're voting for and submit your answer in the poll as well.
Personally I would vote for Ron Paul, but my state's primary is one month before my 18th birthday, so I can't vote in the primary. I will, however, be voting in the presidential election.
01-18-2012, 05:55 AM
#11
Just4Hax
"I will speak ill of
Originally posted by TornadoCreator
Ron Paul will attempt to do the following if he gets into power and I will discuss each thing in brief.
1. He will end the wars and bring home the American soldiers - Fantastic, I support him in this. I'm glad to see a presidential candidate who wants to do this... Obama also plans to do the same thing, only he's not using it as a pulpit and is prepared to do it gradually in order to assist stability in the region. I think Obama's methods are better. While I don't support the wars, now that they've happened I think USA has a duty to clean up it's bloody mess and not just all pack up and leave instantly. Overall, however Ron Pauls position here is pretty good. GOOD
1. He will end the wars and bring home the American soldiers - Fantastic, I support him in this. I'm glad to see a presidential candidate who wants to do this... Obama also plans to do the same thing, only he's not using it as a pulpit and is prepared to do it gradually in order to assist stability in the region. I think Obama's methods are better. While I don't support the wars, now that they've happened I think USA has a duty to clean up it's bloody mess and not just all pack up and leave instantly. Overall, however Ron Pauls position here is pretty good. GOOD
We can't clean it up while the people there don't want us to be there. Are you aware every other candidate is considering going into Iran now as well (except Ron Paul)?
Originally posted by another user
2. Ron Paul will bankrupt the United States. He refuses to raise taxes and even plans to lower corporate tax. While this is first of all, a smack in the face to everyone who's protesting on wall street, it's also bloody stupid as it stands. His budget cuts would lower US spending by less than 2% yet would severely damage the school system, power plant infrastructure, housing development and subsidy systems so much so that you can expect food prices to increase, electricity prices will increase, schools will flag, homelessness will increase, housing standards will fall, gas prices will increase, tourism will drop and overall income from commercial ventures will drop. As a result there will be a larger outlay in Social Security, Medicaid and Unemployment as well as more unpaid medical bills and taxes from the poor which the government effectively has to pay. In short, Ron Pauls planned "cuts" will save an insignificant amount of money, cost the American people billions and cause this recession to progress into a depression comparable with the great depression of the 1920's. If you can't see this, you need to look at ecconomics in more depth and consider the larger ramifications of what's being done here. Ron Paul will bankrupt America. BAD
Yes, his tax methods are very extreme. The way I weigh it though, this will never come close to flying through so I consider it harmless for the most part. Now this is different from the war issue as the President has much more influence over wars than taxes.
Originally posted by another user
3. Ron Paul is a cooky racist who wants to withdraw USA from the United Nations, North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, North American Free Trade Agreements, and World Trade Organisation. He wants to bar all forms of regulation and supports a true "free market" which will mean under this man a company can quite literally sell you drugs telling you they will cure a headache when actually they do nothing and kill 2% of everyone who takes it, and if you take it, it's your own damn fault. Regulation is there for a reason, so corporations can't screw people over, trade laws are in place so corporations don't develop monopolies and extort people for there services. You honestly would give this up. On top of that, leaving the United Nations would be a taset declaration of war on Russia, China, France and UK who would be forced to disarm USA as per the Internation Nuclear Proliferation Laws the UN has in place in which only the 5 peacekeeping nations may hold Nukes as an international deterrant... you know the same justification George W. Bush used for invading Iraq. The dreaded WMDs. Ron Paul would willingly isolate USA and cease current trade agreement, which would cause America to become a technological black spot as countries refuse unfair trading with USA. This will cause America to rely on itself, and as little is made in USA, it imports far more than it exports, USA will become extremely poor very fast and imports would be for the super rich only. BAD
Now let me implement my last statement again. In reality, I expect him to get about... ehhh 50% around of his economic influence through. Let's be real for a minute, the likelihood of this getting through is near zero.
Secondly, Ron Paul has made out to point out he doesn't want isolationism, he wants equal relations between nations. It is favoritism that is getting us in these sticky situations. Our ridiculous favoritism toward Israel and pretending they can do know wrong is causing the whole Middle East to hate us. Favoritism put simply, does not work. As it creates enemies. If instead we can make a smaller "allegiance" between the Arab nations and Israel we actually might get somewhere.
Originally posted by another user
4. Ron Paul is a strong supporter of constitutional rights (only some of them mind) ,and backs habeas corpus as a political defense. He is opposed to the Patriot act, and opposes the use of federally sanctioned torture. In in power he would outlaw such practices and at least try to get Guantanimo Bay closed, but then many politicians say that (Obama included) and change there mind once they're in power so I'll believe that when I see it. Sort of Good... honestly, this should be a damn given
But when this isn't an average I consider it "good" not sort of good.
Originally posted by another user
5. Ron Paul is definite opposer of constitutional rights (although he doesn't think so), and actively opposes both free speech and the seperation of church and state. He supports both SOPA and PIPA so would happily regulate the internet, and he believes that seperation of church and state "deprives people of religious liberty", basically he's playing the "christians are persecuted" card. BAD
??? I actually believe he was against SOPA, and am almost positive as that would also require more government (opposite of what he wants)
As for church and state, I have to agree with you. But due to the issues on hand I can let that go for 4-8 years. I also understand how he is interpreting the 1st amendment, although I disagree with him on it
Originally posted by another user
6. He's a fúcking CREATIONIST! Seriously Just4Hax, this man believes God magically made us appear from no-where and you want him in charge. He also wants creationism taught in schools and actively uses the fact that he's a physician as ammunition to push this, claiming he's a "scientist" when he's bloody well not, so he can push his agenda further. If you honestly support someone who would push for creationism in schoool Just4Hax then my respect for you has plummeted. BAD
All candidates are creationists, that is a fact. It is how that influences his decisions that I care about. Once again, this is weighed into many factors. So I consider this "Neutral"
Originally posted by another user
7. Ron Paul is a supporter of what he calls private property rights and would remove environmental protection and pollution prevention laws because he considers them to be anti-free-market. This would effectively mean there would be no corporate regulations of any kind under Ron Paul, you may as well opt to live in the cyberpunk world of Shadowrun and get it over with. BAD
As I have previously stated, I believe government should be more involved at certain issues. But as I have stated, he shouldn't get too far with this. His main issue would be dealing with other issues before moving onto this. Along with the fact there are simply too many sponsors against him on this.
Originally posted by another user
8. Ron Paul is a homophobic bigot who is opposed to gay rights, would remove the rights for gay couples to adopt and would reinstate "don't ask don't tell" and expell any currently serving homosexuals from the military. BAD
??? From what I have read Ron Paul believes that it is not governments job to worry about marriage in the least, or about homosexuals in general.
Originally posted by another user
9. Ron Paul considers global warming to be a hoax (remember, this man claims to be a scientist), and would cease all funding into climate change research and alternative power source development (which is only a few hundred million dollars, so don't claim it'll make a difference to the deficit because it bloody won't). BAD
I believe he wouldn't have a large enough influence, or time, to do too much damage. Also, where are you getting the ceasing for alternative power? (source-wise)
Originally posted by another user
10. Ron Paul opposes the federal 'War On Drugs' and would regulate the use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. He also supports decriminalising all forms of cannibis. Finally something good about this man. GOOD
Nothing needed to be said.
Originally posted by another user
11. Ron Paul is anti-immunisation and would push to decommission the USA influenza vaccines. This man is a physician and yet he opposes immunisation for political power, this is something he should KNOW about, yet he spreads the standard conservative lies. This alone makes me severely dislike this man for willingly misinforming people and using his position of authority as a tool. BAD
I haven't heard about this before, can I please have a source.
Originally posted by another user
12. Ron Paul want to legislate the Sanctity Of Life Act and make abortion illegal, at the same time he supports abstinence-only sex education (which isn't education at all), and would make supplying contraception to under 18s illegal. This will basically ensure that USA's already rediculously high teen pregnancy rate goes even higher, the STD rate increases even more, and this will in turn damage the ecconomy as more people apply for Unemployment, Social Security, Medicaid etc. This is a stupid idea that will serve to ensure the poor end up even poorer and now lumbered with a load of kids, well done there. BAD
I disagree with him majorly on this issue, but I have hopes that there are enough factors running against him on this issue.
Originally posted by another user
OK, that's a good assessment for Ron Paul, all the major issues covered. Do you REALLY still support him. Honestly Just4Hax, I'm shocked at you. You think THIS is better than Obama. Sure, Obama is an awful DEMOCRAT, but if this is what passes for a president in your eye, the wishy washy republican Obama holding a democrat flag is still far better.
Yes, all factors considered I prefer Paul. Obama has harmed the economy, or at least not improved it enough.(sorry for the bad warning). Obama will keep us in war, and possibly even allow a new war in Iran to break out. Obama will continue the war on drugs, WHICH IS KEEPING CRIME RATES HIGH, OVERFILLING UP OUR PRISONS, AND COSTING US INCREDIBLE AMOUNTS OF DOLLARS!!! Hell simply by ending prohibition it'll save us a fortune. By fixing relations in the Middle East it would help with the war costs. Sorry that's all the time I have to post now, tomorrow I'll post a response to whatever you post and maybe more. Thank You.
01-18-2012, 05:56 AM
#12
tenthlobbymw2
Maggbot timeout!
01-19-2012, 04:17 AM
#14
Just4Hax
"I will speak ill of
Originally posted by Team
lol whoever has more money is gonna win. Money buys power, it's sad but true
Mitt Romney - $85 million to $264 million
Jon Huntsman - $16 million to $72 million
Newt Gingrich - $7 million to $31 million
Ron Paul - $2.4 million to $5.4 million
Rick Santorum - $1 million to $3 million
Mitt Romney - $85 million to $264 million
Jon Huntsman - $16 million to $72 million
Newt Gingrich - $7 million to $31 million
Ron Paul - $2.4 million to $5.4 million
Rick Santorum - $1 million to $3 million
Except that Huntsman dropped
. And the fact Ron Paul comes #1 in almost every online poll. Money only goes so far. You also need several of these traits:- Ability to manipulate
- Ability to lie
- Charismatic
- Knowing what the hell your doing
- Playing off a certain crowd or card
Keep note you don't need all the above, only some.
The following user thanked Just4Hax for this useful post:
01-19-2012, 04:25 AM
#15
VHS
Has been a while
Originally posted by Just4Hax
Except that Huntsman dropped . And the fact Ron Paul comes #1 in almost every online poll. Money only goes so far. You also need several of these traits:
- Ability to manipulate
- Ability to lie
- Charismatic
- Knowing what the hell your doing
- Playing off a certain crowd or card
Keep note you don't need all the above, only some.
. And the fact Ron Paul comes #1 in almost every online poll. Money only goes so far. You also need several of these traits:- Ability to manipulate
- Ability to lie
- Charismatic
- Knowing what the hell your doing
- Playing off a certain crowd or card
Keep note you don't need all the above, only some.
Noted =D
---------
01-28-2012, 01:42 AM
#18
schaffinosx
To and fro the island.
Here's how I feel... Somewhere out there, there is an independent candidate running for president that would probably obliterate all of the current candidates if they had the proper funds / support. Unfortunately, that's now how the American political system works.
I used to be a strong liberal, but that has since changed. I'm much more moderate than before, and see the faults in President Obama. He's not the savior of our times, nor is he perfect, and I'm sure he's not entirely the calm, collected, honest guy he seems to be during the election years. Nevertheless, I think he's wholly better than the GOP candidates we have to choose from.
I used to be a strong liberal, but that has since changed. I'm much more moderate than before, and see the faults in President Obama. He's not the savior of our times, nor is he perfect, and I'm sure he's not entirely the calm, collected, honest guy he seems to be during the election years. Nevertheless, I think he's wholly better than the GOP candidates we have to choose from.
01-28-2012, 01:38 PM
#19
Originally posted by SchaffinOSX
Here's how I feel... Somewhere out there, there is an independent candidate running for president that would probably obliterate all of the current candidates if they had the proper funds / support. Unfortunately, that's now how the American political system works.
I used to be a strong liberal, but that has since changed. I'm much more moderate than before, and see the faults in President Obama. He's not the savior of our times, nor is he perfect, and I'm sure he's not entirely the calm, collected, honest guy he seems to be during the election years. Nevertheless, I think he's wholly better than the GOP candidates we have to choose from.
I used to be a strong liberal, but that has since changed. I'm much more moderate than before, and see the faults in President Obama. He's not the savior of our times, nor is he perfect, and I'm sure he's not entirely the calm, collected, honest guy he seems to be during the election years. Nevertheless, I think he's wholly better than the GOP candidates we have to choose from.
I don't know much about American politics, but didn't Obama promise to veto(or something like that) the NDAA and then go back on his promise? So he's not only a liar, but he's a liar regarding something that essentially removes everybody's right to a trial. Hmmm...
Copyright © 2026, NextGenUpdate.
All Rights Reserved.
