Paulbots' opinions requested

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The establishment keeps throwing these Dole/Bush/McCain types at us and expects us to vote for them. The "Tea Party" elections in 2010 should have sent them a message, but it didn't work. We gave them the House and they turned their back on us.

Because of crap like this, the end of the republican party may well be at hand.

I will only be supporting whoever is running against Obama because there will probably be 3-4 seats on the SCOTUS in play.

Exactly my position. History has shown it to be a gamble with what sort of judge a republican will nominate. But with the dem's, there is never a doubt. I gotta play the odds. My conscience will not allow me to support anybody that will result in Obama getting re-elected.

But I'll be buying 9mm and .223 like crazy for when Obama wins again...

You might want to hedge your bets and buy while it's available

 

[firehawk1]

No, actually its a strategic choice.

• They are reasoning that Obama will continue to make things worse, at a faster rate, than whoever can replace him.
• They area also reasoning that no matter how bad the choice may be, he will do less damage than Obama.
• Further, they are also reasoning that if the best choice (Ron Paul or Gary Johnson) can't win then its better to have someone beat Obama than to simply throw away a vote by voting for a loser.

Save your breath, you're not going to convince anyone on this point. We who truly believe Obama is the most dangerous person to occupy the White House, and who's top priority is to remove him are nothing more than ignorant sheep to the "enlightened" crowd.

 

[smokingman]

Save your breath, you're not going to convince anyone on this point. We who truly believe Obama is the most dangerous person to occupy the White House, and who's top priority is to remove him are nothing more than ignorant sheep to the "enlightened" crowd.

Enlighten me on what Romney would do differently other than cut taxes than Obama?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I am 38 years old.A life time Republican.I have always voted.The past election I voted for the lesser of two evils(not Obama lol).

I was disgusted with myself.I will never vote for the lesser of two evils again.I will vote for who I feel is best for the United States of America.

This year I will vote Ron Paul,if I have to etch his name into a computer screen.The other republicans running have shown they do not care about my concerns and are clueless to what is actually causing our economic problems.

Ron Paul is the only vote I can cast and walk away feeling that I voted for who I thought was best for the job and the country.

The "he can not win" crowd who vote for the lesser of two evils can blame themselves when we continue down the road to oblivion.Me I voted for the best man for the job period.

I hope he wins,but given the anyone but Obama attitude of even intelligent men and women it does not look likely.If people just voted on who they thought was the best man for the job he(Ron Paul) would win in a landslide.

I'm confused. Right now we are going through Republican primaries. No one (that I know of) is voting for Obama in the Republican primary. So how exactly is the "anyone but Obama" crowd hurting Paul's chances to win the Republican nomination? Can someone help me out here?

 

[firehawk1]

Enlighten me on what Romney would do differently other than cut taxes than Obama?

Let me start by saying I'm no big Romney fan, I'm simply responding to your question. Don't assume I am a Romney supporter, because I'm not.

Cutting taxes is a good place to start. We all "should" know Obama won't cut them, he will raise them. So IMO that's a +1 for Romney.

There is no proof OR historical precedent that any of the potential nominees would spend trillions of dollars at anywhere the rate Obama has. Possible +1 for anyone else.

I can't believe any of the possible nominees would appoint far left leaning/marxist judges to the Supreme Court as we know Obama would/will. IMO a definite +1 to "anyone but Obama".

DISCLAIMER: These are only my opinions and are not intended to convince anyone my positions on these issues is superior to theirs.

 

[smokingman]

I'm confused. Right now we are going through Republican primaries. No one (that I know of) is voting for Obama in the Republican primary. So how exactly is the "anyone but Obama" crowd hurting Paul's chances to win the Republican nomination? Can someone help me out here?

I am no longer going to tow the party line.I will vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job.
The "anyone but Obama" crowd will tow the party line and vote for who ever wins the Republican nomination.I can not do that and have a clear conscious any more.
I will try to do my part and support Ron Paul in the Indiana primary,and still have some hope he will win the party nomination(he is second in delegates),but my vote no longer is tied to party loyalty or anyone but Obama.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I am no longer going to tow the party line.I will vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job.
The "anyone but Obama" crowd will tow the party line and vote for who ever wins the Republican nomination.I can not do that and have a clear conscious any more.
I will try to do my part and support Ron Paul in the Indiana primary,and still have some hope he will win the party nomination(he is second in delegates),but my vote no longer is tied to party loyalty or anyone but Obama.

OK but you didn't answer the question. How is the "not Obama" crowd preventing Ron Paul from receiving the Republican nomination?

 

[firehawk1]

I am no longer going to tow the party line.I will vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job.
The "anyone but Obama" crowd will tow the party line and vote for who ever wins the Republican nomination.I can not do that and have a clear conscious any more.
I will try to do my part and support Ron Paul in the Indiana primary,and still have some hope he will win the party nomination(he is second in delegates),but my vote no longer is tied to party loyalty or anyone but Obama.

Fair enough as far as I'm concerned, I will rep you for stating your position without slamming anyone else with a differing position.

 

[hornadylnl]

OK but you didn't answer the question. How is the "not Obama" crowd preventing Ron Paul from receiving the Republican nomination?

Because many republicans won't vote for their favorite candidate in the primaries. They'll vote for the one they think has the best chance of beating Obama. That's what brought us McCain.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Because many republicans won't vote for their favorite candidate in the primaries. They'll vote for the one they think has the best chance of beating Obama. That's what brought us McCain.

That just makes absolutely no sense. Actually it makes negative sense. Who wouldn't vote for their favorite candidate in the primary? I'd like to hear from one person who didn't vote for their favorite candidate in the 2008 primaries. Anyone?

McCain wasn't the Establishment candidate. What brought us McCain was that everyone did vote for their favorite candidate, and McCain was favored by more voters.

 

[tr1gg3r]

To answer the OP's question, no, I still wouldn't vote for any of the three neo-cons. I will be voting for Gary Johnson if Dr. Paul doesn't get the nomination. If Gary Johnson doesn't get the Libertarian nomination, then I'll obviously have to rethink my strategy. Until then, this is the plan.

 

[rambone]

I'm willing to bet that both RON and RAND PAUL will vote for ROMNEY

That's not what happened in 2008. Ron Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin for president, instead of McCain.

Enlighten me on what Romney would do differently other than cut taxes than Obama?

More war, bigger military, more erosion of domestic rights in the name of the War on Terror.

Here he warmongers about jihad and promises 100,000 more troops overseas. The exact wrong direction they should be going.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foj_glQCr3w

And here he advocates diminishing due process. He says the constitution will restrain government in criminal matters, but anything that has to do with the War on Terror will use a "very different kind of law."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fo8q3f9pmU

 

[hornadylnl]

That just makes absolutely no sense. Actually it makes negative sense. Who wouldn't vote for their favorite candidate in the primary? I'd like to hear from one person who didn't vote for their favorite candidate in the 2008 primaries. Anyone?

McCain wasn't the Establishment candidate. What brought us McCain was that everyone did vote for their favorite candidate, and McCain was favored by more voters.

So some people will cross over and pick the opposing ballot and vote for primary candidate least likely to defeat their parties candidate. You've never heard of that either? So you honestly believe there are no primary voters that don't heavily weigh the candidate most likely to beat Obama vs the one most aligned with their personal beliefs?

How many times have we heard on here in the last several months "I like Paul's policies the best but he can't win so I'm voting for ....."?

 

[MadBomber]

Careful there Rambone: I went to dinner a couple hours ago a conservative that believes in the Constitution and returned only to find that I'm a liberal Obama voter that can't comment any more about republican politics.

And Kirk, sorry about my omission; I meant to type "Christian" but fat-fingered out the word "Protestant". Mea Culpa counselor.

As for the rest, somehow I'll just have to learn to live with your disapproval, (much like the GOP learning to live without a viable POTUS candidate in two consecutive elections.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tonight's "Obama Is My BFF" party down at the Socialist/Marxist Hall. It's taxpayer funded and I love me some entitlements!

 

[jsgolfman]

Why anyone who supports Dr. Paul would respond to a thread titled "Paulbots' opinions requested" is beyond me.

 

[mrjarrell]

Why anyone who supports Dr. Paul would respond to a thread titled "Paulbots' opinions requested" is beyond me.

I was under the impression that the mods had hit that word with the banhammer. Guess they had a change of heart.

 

[PINski1015]

Gary Johnson or buy myself an oil rig and go live on it.

 

[hornadylnl]

And just what position would Paul be given in a Romney administration? Commander of the North Pole? What power would Paul be given if he had a "high level cabinet position"? The only reason Romney would even consider bringing Paul in is to try to lure his voting base to vote for him and then relegating him to a dimly lit closet and throwing away the key.

For Paul to take a position in the Romney administration, it would expose Paul for being a total hypocrit. Romney is antithetical to everything Paul believes in. I will not vote for Romney and if Paul shows up in Romney's admin, I will have zero respect for Paul.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I was under the impression that the mods had hit that word with the banhammer. Guess they had a change of heart.

I didn't know that. Is statist pig and sheeple also on the banhammer list?

Is there like a George Carlin list of words that can never be said on [STRIKE]television[/STRIKE] INGO?

And just what position would Paul be given in a Romney administration? Commander of the North Pole? What power would Paul be given if he had a "high level cabinet position"? The only reason Romney would even consider bringing Paul in is to try to lure his voting base to vote for him and then relegating him to a dimly lit closet and throwing away the key.

For Paul to take a position in the Romney administration, it would expose Paul for being a total hypocrit. Romney is antithetical to everything Paul believes in. I will not vote for Romney and if Paul shows up in Romney's admin, I will have zero respect for Paul.

If I was elected President his title would be OB/GYN, a position he is (seriously) emminently and most qualified for.

Joining a Romney administration wouldn't expose Paul as a hypocrite. His earmark votes have already done that.

 

[theweakerbrother]

What if Paul was appointed as Surgeon General by Romney?