Thread: Who Do You Support For President?

If Romney is the Republican candidate, as seems likely, I'll just write this one off as yet another lost opportunity for change. Probably vote Libertarian hoping to build some momentum there.

It's too early for this poll. What if the third party candidates get their act together and don't nominate somebody who's fucking insane? What if the Republican Party musters up some integrity like what the Democrats did and reject Mitt Romney? What if Barack Obama is assassinated by some crazed teapartier? This poll is indeed disingenuous.

Originally Posted by AjaxPress

It's too early for this poll. What if the third party candidates get their act together and don't nominate somebody who's fucking insane? What if the Republican Party musters up some integrity like what the Democrats did and reject Mitt Romney? What if Barack Obama is assassinated by some crazed teapartier? This poll is indeed disingenuous.

If Barack Obama is assassinated by a crazy teabagger, Joe Biden will win the same huge majority that LBJ got in '64.

The only way I could be persuaded to vote Republican is if the candidate in question made a credible promise to repeal PPACA. And I'm not sure I can think of a Republican less likely to do that than Romney.

I voted for Pres. Obama.

But if the 3rd party candidate turned out to be Nader, he would get my vote.

I would vote for Obama in hopes that during the first two years in his second term, he moves back to the left, and pulls all stops at getting some real change going. To bring to fruition his economic speech he gave a few weeks ago. I want a black FDR to show himself. This is what america needs or our average Americans are toast, and America may burn.

If it comes down to this shit, I'll write in "Ron Paul", vote for a third party that nominates a constitutionalist, or sit the fuck home and eat a burger on election day all the while laughing while the GOP gets its ass handed to it for nominating another moderate.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

I voted for Pres. Obama.

But if the 3rd party candidate turned out to be Nader, he would get my vote.

I would vote for Obama in hopes that during the first two years in his second term, he moves back to the left, and pulls all stops at getting some real change going. To bring to fruition his economic speech he gave a few weeks ago. I want a black FDR to show himself. This is what america needs or our average Americans are toast, and America may burn.

I wish Kucinich would challenge Obama on the Dem side. Now imagine a Kucinich vs. Paul Presidential election. Damn that would be a thing to behold.

Even though Kucinich is a Progressive and there really isn't a foreseeable scenario where I could ever vote for him, I do respect that man and see him as honest and of course there are a few points of agreement (albeit very few). However, in a hypothetical scenario where is was Kucinich vs. a Romney/Gingrich/Perry/Santorum/other authoritarian, big government conservative, piss on the Constitution candidate, I'd probably have to at least consider voting for Kucinich despite him being a Progressive.

If it comes down to this shit, I'll write in "Ron Paul", vote for a third party that nominates a constitutionalist, or sit the fuck home and eat a burger on election day all the while laughing while the GOP gets its ass handed to it for nominating another moderate.

Yeah ironically a lot of neo conservatives like myself are relying on you folks to do exactly that just in case we need to assure a loss in the fall ; that should help get a real, true conservative in, come 2016. Less the burger, i'd not vote either out of this choice.

Originally Posted by Traveler

Yeah ironically a lot of neo conservatives like myself are relying on you folks to do exactly that just in case we need to assure a loss in the fall ; that should help get a real, true conservative in, come 2016. Less the burger, i'd not vote either out of this choice.

If you are a neo conservative you aren't going to support a "true conservative". The true conservative is already in this race. Come 2016, given that he loses the nomination to Romney, I believe Rand Paul will run and I believe he will win. The Liberty movement in the GOP is growing. Look at Paul's support nationally in 2008 relative to now - from 3-4% to consistently 14-17% now depending on the poll, that's 3-4x's the support. Look at Paul's share of the vote in IA - from 10% in 2008 to 22% this year, double the support (Romney in contrast, stayed completely flat), in NH Paul got about 7% last time, 23% this time, a tripling of his support (Romney only increased 3% points). This movement is growing and if Paul doesn't win this time, a liberty candidate WILL win in 2016.

Let's not bicker about the definition of conservative - for now you have your work cut out just to scupper this election for Republicans. Then we will fight it out in 2016, maybe Rand VS Bush to see who comes out on top. But it'd be redundant if Romney became President this fall.

I'll pass on voting in this poll for obvious reasons...

TheViewFromIndependence44.jpg

Originally Posted by Traveler

Let's not bicker about the definition of conservative - for now you have your work cut out just to scupper this election for Republicans. Then we will fight it out in 2016, maybe Rand VS Bush to see who comes out on top. But it'd be redundant if Romney became President this fall.

Ok, sure we can stop bickering about the definition of conservative I suppose. But I will leave you with this little tidbit though:

If you want to know what the "true" aspect of anything is, you have to look at what came first, not what came 2nd, 3rd, 4th, last, etc. I mean "neo conservative" literally means "NEW conservative". It's my contention that a "true conservative" would have to be an "old conservative" not a "new conservative", this is just simple logic. Now, where did the neo conservative movement start? The Democratic Party. The neo conservative movement was coined that by a guy in the Democratic Party who disliked the new hawkish faction of the Dems who opposed the "anti-war" wing of the Democrats from the 1960's. The movement was composed of Dems who were wary of the anti-war stance and wanted a hawkish foreign policy. When Reagan came along, they moved to the Republican Party as the "Reagan Democrats". So, if the neo conservatives started in the Democratic Party and slowly took over the party from the traditional conservatives and northeastern establishment/Rockefeller types, how are the "new" guys on the block "true conservatives". I'm just sayin'

Anyway, it is not mine or any other Paul supporter's desire to scupper the election for the GOP, it is our desire to turn the GOP back to its traditional roots, back to the Party of Robert A. Taft, back to the GOP that expressed fidelity to the Constitution, opposed FDR's New Deal, who believed in sound money and fiscal sanity and limited government at the Federal level. This is a battle for the heart and soul of the GOP, nothing more nothing less. We WANT the GOP to win BY GOING BACK TO ITS ROOTS.

Many on your side (Limbaugh included) have made the claim that the GOP has lost its way by nominating moderates and that is why McCain lost to Obama. If that is true, then why would the establishment in the GOP push for another moderate? Answer: they know that Obama has basically been Bush III and has essentially kept all of Bush's policies, so in essence they retain their power either way, whether Romney or Obama wins, it doesn't matter. At least if Obama wins they can continue to make bundles of money writing books and speaking out against Obama and he can take the fall for everything. So the establishment doesn't give a shit if they lose, they only care if the gravy train ends, hence why Paul is fought tooth and nail by the GOP, even when EVERYOTHER canidate is defended from every attack (think Cain).

So, see we want the GOP, a CONSERVATIVE, CONSTITUTIONALIST, FISCAL CONSERVATIVE GOP to win in November 2012, not a moderate/Progressive/Democrat-lite GOP to win in Nov. 2012. It's really that simple.

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19618:

"As neo-con godfather Irving Kristol once remarked, a neo-conservative is a ''liberal who was mugged by reality''. True to that description, neo-cons generally originated on the left side of the political spectrum and some times from the far left. Many, such as Kristol himself, have Trotskyite roots that are still reflected in their polemical and organisational skills and ideological zeal."

"Neo-conservative foreign-policy positions, which have their origin in opposition to the New Left of the 1960s, fears over a return to U.S. isolationism during the Vietnam War and the progressive international isolation of Israel in the wake of wars with its Arab neighbours in 1967 and 1973, have been tactically very flexible over the past 35 years, but its key principles have remained the same."