GOP Nomination

This is an honest question to the Republicans on the board. In case you couldn't tell I'm definitely a bleeding hearts liberal, but I really would like to know who you think is the best GOP candidate, and why. I'm obviously more than a bit bias and would like to know from the other side's point of view, who you all think the best candidate is.

Rather than "who deserves" I would much rather see "who earns?"
And please explain why any of them deserve the nomination. It would be nice if a true small government conservative would run! So far all I see is a left wing ultra liberal defending himself against a group of rhinos.

Alf Landon.

Who do you think "deserves" the Democratic nomination?

Alf Landon. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

Since Alf's name is not listed in the poll, I suppose you were one of those who voted "other." Is that correct?

Who do you think "deserves" the Democratic nomination? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

It seems to me that you are attempting to hijack the thread. In order to avoid confusion, perhaps you should start your own poll!

Rather than "who deserves" I would much rather see "who earns?"
It would be nice if a true small government conservative would run! So far all I see is a left wing ultra liberal defending himself against a group of rhinos. Originally Posted by Mini Racer

What race are you watching? Ron Paul is the definition of a small government conservative. The rest of the candidates and Obama are all the same. They are all big government, war pushing, liberty stealing puppets. If anyone from the Republican Party other then Ron Paul becomes President then NOTHING will change and the economy and America in general will continue to go down the shitter. Period!

What race are you watching? Ron Paul is the definition of a small government conservative. The rest of the candidates and Obama are all the same. They are all big government, war pushing, liberty stealing puppets. If anyone from the Republican Party other then Ron Paul becomes President then NOTHING will change and the economy and America in general will continue to go down the shitter. Period! Originally Posted by Texaspride74

+1

I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas especially when it comes to personal liberties. I think he is definitely the most constitutional conservative of all the candidates. His isolationist foreign policy will never get him elected in the 21 century. To say that Iran, or North Korea would not be a threat if we just left them alone is naive or uniformed. Considering how long he has been in DC I don't know which is better.

My first choice would be Allen West, after that I've got to go with Ron Paul despite the objections others express about foreign policy. This is wild considering how stupid our foreign policy has been for the last several decades. I'm all for isolationism, that isn't the same as being a pacifist. When the plan was floated to pay for Desert Storm with Iraqi oil, I had no problem with it, but nation building is for chumps and contractors. We very badly need to re-establish nuclear deterrence and grow up to the fact that the proper response to being attacked isn't to go build them a new school.

Think about how much of the military's overseas involvement wouldn't be necessary if we fully, FULLY developed our own oil,gas, coal and nuclear power.

Ron Paul is neither naive nor uninformed. He has studied foreign policy longer than Obama has been alive. If you haven't heard his "Imagine" speech, which has been posted on this board several times, you won't understand his position. It makes more sense than we've seen in 50 years.

I’d rather see Ron Paul, but I’ll vote for Romney. I think he is the only one that can beat Obama. Newt has too much baggage with women problems, the contract with America days, lavish expenditures with campaign money, not enough money and an in general turn off because he’s an ass. And Perry is a bottom feeder that never had a chance.

Romney can run nose to nose with Obama on the only piece of legislation that Obama got passed: healthcare except Romney’s isn’t caught up in the federal courts and it isn’t weighted down with negativity and extreme politics like Obama care is.

And it's not unconstitutional for a state to enact universal health care for it's citizens. It is unconstitutional for the federal government to do so.

Ron Paul said in one of the recent debates that Iran would have no reason to develop a nuclear weapons program if we( America ) just left them alone. Do you really believe that?

Of course it's more complicated than that, but when you only get 30-60 seconds to answer a serious question, you have to condense far too much. But essentially, yes. We have been fucking Iran since we overturned their elected government and installed our puppet, the Shah. Then we act surprised when they throw out the Shah, and institute a government that doesn't like the US. Shocking, isn't it? Then we arm our good friend, Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Now we have a sabre rattling nuclear power in the region, Israel, who sees Iran as a threat, and we tell Iran don't you dare defend yourself. Is it any wonder they don't want to negotiate with the US? Iran is a beautiful, resource rich country and we made the choice to turn them against us. They were not natural enemies until we started fucking them.

Ron Paul said in one of the recent debates that Iran would have no reason to develop a nuclear weapons program if we( America ) just left them alone. Do you really believe that? Originally Posted by boardman

Nope.

I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas especially when it comes to personal liberties. I think he is definitely the most constitutional conservative of all the candidates. His isolationist foreign policy will never get him elected in the 21 century. To say that Iran, or North Korea would not be a threat if we just left them alone is naive or uniformed. Considering how long he has been in DC I don't know which is better. Originally Posted by boardman

His foreign policy is not an isolationist one. That is a myth promoted by the corrupt Main Stream Media. His foreign policy is one of non-interventionism. This is the same foreign policy that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson believed in. There is a very big difference between the two. Ron Paul is all for free trade with other Countries and avoiding all wars not related to direct self-defense. He believe that in the event you have to go to war you get in, end it, and get out. No Nation building, No trying to tell other Countries what they should be doing in their Country, no proping up or overthrowing leaders of other Countries' leaders. We are hated around the world because of the current foreign policy, the war on terror, and Military Industrial Complex. Not to mention we can't afford to police the world and all throughout history, Empires who do this fall.

Ron Paul is neither naive nor uninformed. He has studied foreign policy longer than Obama has been alive. If you haven't heard his "Imagine" speech, which has been posted on this board several times, you won't understand his position. It makes more sense than we've seen in 50 years. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Exactly! A lot of people need to watch that and really think about it. The fact is that if China came here and did what we are doing in the Middle East, we would not like it one damn bit.

I’d rather see Ron Paul, but I’ll vote for Romney. I think he is the only one that can beat Obama. Newt has too much baggage with women problems, the contract with America days, lavish expenditures with campaign money, not enough money and an in general turn off because he’s an ass. And Perry is a bottom feeder that never had a chance. Romney can run nose to nose with Obama on the only piece of legislation that Obama got passed: healthcare except Romney’s isn’t caught up in the federal courts and it isn’t weighted down with negativity and extreme politics like Obama care is. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Romney is no different then Obama and if Romney got elected nothing would change. They are two sides of the same coin. Romney is not conservative at all and would get destroyed in a debate with Obama for all the issues he has flip-flopped on over the years. Same with Newt. However, Ron Paul has been the same for 30 years and doesn't ever change his views or policies to fit the setting he is in at the time like the others.

Ron Paul said in one of the recent debates that Iran would have no reason to develop a nuclear weapons program if we( America ) just left them alone. Do you really believe that? Originally Posted by boardman

Yes, Iran in reality is nowhere near having nuclear weapons and even if they were to get one (years down the road), they have no means to attack us with them. As for Isreal being in danger, Isreal has over 300 nukes and if Iran really was about to do anything, they could whipe Iran off the map. All of this is just fearmongering to further the agenda of the Military Industrial Complex and the banking elite who really run things. The post 9/11 culture we live in has through massive propaganda and disinfo, got people to believe there is an "evil terrorist" hidding under every rock and around every corner just waiting to get them. This is simply not the case. The bottom line is that the fraudulant "war on terror" was set up to be a never ending war set up to feed the needs of the Military Industrial Complex and Iran is just the next "boogeyman" in a long line.

Of course it's more complicated than that, but when you only get 30-60 seconds to answer a serious question, you have to condense far too much. But essentially, yes. We have been fucking Iran since we overturned their elected government and installed our puppet, the Shah. Then we act surprised when they throw out the Shah, and institute a government that doesn't like the US. Shocking, isn't it? Then we arm our good friend, Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Now we have a sabre rattling nuclear power in the region, Israel, who sees Iran as a threat, and we tell Iran don't you dare defend yourself. Is it any wonder they don't want to negotiate with the US? Iran is a beautiful, resource rich country and we made the choice to turn them against us. They were not natural enemies until we started fucking them. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

+1 Again you are correct