Question for republicans

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Why is everyone so afraid of this poll. Yall act as if Dr drock will later be wielding some kind of powerful position over you if you have to adjust your position.

I took the poll as a "what do you believe is right" question. I mean you have to take it that way don't you? We can't go from this deep in the hole to surfing on waves in one year. Not gonna happen. But on principle that's how I would vote. Reality may be different but it is what it is.

And anyone who claims even Paul would not be deficit spending at least for the first couple years is a fool. Once the economy comes back things MUST change.

 

[Immanuel]

The OP of this thread is going to be reported for discriminating against those of us who are not Republicans. I may even file suit! j/k

Hell, the least he could have done is said conservatives!

At least then those of us who are sane <ducks> could reply.

I will say that I have little doubt that I won't be voting for any of the current crop of hopefuls regardless of party. But, despite the fact that I believe we must increase revenue and cut spending significantly it is not because of the fact that I won't vote for anyone who will increase the debt. All of them are going to do that.

I won't vote for them because they are all made of the same cloth.

Immie

And I still say with all due respect and affection for you Immie, to refuse to vote for the best candidate available, even somebody you have to hold your nose to vote for, is a prescription for ensuring that the worst candidate will be elected.

And as I outlined in my previous post, the worst candidate may be made of the same cloth as the others, but in this case, the worst candidate is made of a whole heck of a lot more of it.

And however principled and well intentioned, I can't see how withholding one's vote or voting for somebody who absolutely cannot win is any different than intentionally throwing the country under the bus.

Yeah, but when you all elect Mitt Romney and he makes Obama's spending look like a day at the ballgame, I'm not going to be saying to the Republicans, "fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice shame on me."

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?
If you could, make a post explaining your position.
Thanks
(Votes are public, just as an fy)

This is so darn subjective its hard to answer without the other side of the answer. $15,000,000,000,000+ debt is still 15 trillion+ debt--a world of money that few can imagine in reality. It continues to burden us and will, as all great-(in debt) cultures before us, do us in unless it is plainly stopped and reversed.

So, on the one hand, being conservative, no one wants someone that is going to increase this burden, but no, it's better to have the conservative in there than a lib, no matter what the fiscal event is going to be. It's also going to take a bit of time to reverse the debt trend once we commit to do so.

The main frustration of this entire subject is neither party seems to understand what 15 trillion+ dollars of debt really is.

Robert

I do understand, at least in principle, how much 15+ trillion dollars is. I do understand that every living American is on the hook for about $50,000 of that debt or $200,000 for a family of four. Our Fearless leader proposes to add at least another 5 trillion to that over the next four years with the serious deficit reduction proposed to begin taking effect after he is safely out of office and the next President will be blamed.

It is no accident that his game plan includes the unpopular parts of his legislation to become obvious AFTER the elections are safely obver.

We are in such a hopeless mess, no President can hope to correct it all in one term of office. But at least with any of the four Republicans still in the running, we have a chance to start turning it around. With Barack Obama we have none.

 

[Immanuel]

Would you vote for a republican who's plan included an increase to debt and deficits?
If you could, make a post explaining your position.
Thanks
(Votes are public, just as an fy)

This is so darn subjective its hard to answer without the other side of the answer. $15,000,000,000,000+ debt is still 15 trillion+ debt--a world of money that few can imagine in reality. It continues to burden us and will, as all great-(in debt) cultures before us, do us in unless it is plainly stopped and reversed.

So, on the one hand, being conservative, no one wants someone that is going to increase this burden, but no, it's better to have the conservative in there than a lib, no matter what the fiscal event is going to be. It's also going to take a bit of time to reverse the debt trend once we commit to do so.

The main frustration of this entire subject is neither party seems to understand what 15 trillion+ dollars of debt really is.

Robert

Problem is that Romney (who will likely get the nomination) is no conservative. Gingrich may be a social conservative, but fiscally? and worse yet... he's a politician first and foremost. Finally, Santorum... well, I'm not sure about him. Lot's of ? there.

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If I thought for a second the gop nominee would deficit spend more than Obama I would vote 3rd party.

 

[Immanuel]

If I thought for a second the gop nominee would deficit spend more than Obama I would vote 3rd party.

Bingo... I'm voting 3rd party.

Immie

 

[Foxfyre]

The OP of this thread is going to be reported for discriminating against those of us who are not Republicans. I may even file suit! j/k

Hell, the least he could have done is said conservatives!

At least then those of us who are sane <ducks> could reply.

I will say that I have little doubt that I won't be voting for any of the current crop of hopefuls regardless of party. But, despite the fact that I believe we must increase revenue and cut spending significantly it is not because of the fact that I won't vote for anyone who will increase the debt. All of them are going to do that.

I won't vote for them because they are all made of the same cloth.

Immie

And I still say with all due respect and affection for you Immie, to refuse to vote for the best candidate available, even somebody you have to hold your nose to vote for, is a prescription for ensuring that the worst candidate will be elected.

And as I outlined in my previous post, the worst candidate may be made of the same cloth as the others, but in this case, the worst candidate is made of a whole heck of a lot more of it.

And however principled and well intentioned, I can't see how withholding one's vote or voting for somebody who absolutely cannot win is any different than intentionally throwing the country under the bus.

Yeah, but when you all elect Mitt Romney and he makes Obama's spending look like a day at the ballgame, I'm not going to be saying to the Republicans, "fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice shame on me."

Immie

I see nothing in Romney's background, rhetoric, or track record that suggests he would govern even a little smidgeon as Barack Obama has governed. I have not picked him (or anybody else) as a favorite yet. Do I think Romeny is a conservative as I am a conservative? No I do not. Do I think he would govern miles to the right of Barack Obama? Yes I do.

 

[Listening]

I think Big Fritz don't want to answer the question because Big Fritz is thinking.

Yes, that is why Big Fritz does not want to answer the question!

To see an overly simplistic question and then illuminate it's flaws is a bad thing how?

There is no built in "are debt/deficits good or bad" part to the question.

That's your imagination playing tricks on you.

Oh no it's not.

Not all cars are "the same". Someone could show up at school and say "My dad gave me a new car" (never mind it came wrapped in a little box that was about 2"x2"x3").

He is saying not all deficits are bad.

 

[Immanuel]

And I still say with all due respect and affection for you Immie, to refuse to vote for the best candidate available, even somebody you have to hold your nose to vote for, is a prescription for ensuring that the worst candidate will be elected.

And as I outlined in my previous post, the worst candidate may be made of the same cloth as the others, but in this case, the worst candidate is made of a whole heck of a lot more of it.

And however principled and well intentioned, I can't see how withholding one's vote or voting for somebody who absolutely cannot win is any different than intentionally throwing the country under the bus.

Yeah, but when you all elect Mitt Romney and he makes Obama's spending look like a day at the ballgame, I'm not going to be saying to the Republicans, "fool me once, shame on you: fool me twice shame on me."

Immie

I see nothing in Romney's background, rhetoric, or track record that suggests he would govern even a little smidgeon as Barack Obama has governed. I have not picked him (or anybody else) as a favorite yet. Do I think Romeny is a conservative as I am a conservative? No I do not. Do I think he would govern miles to the right of Barack Obama? Yes I do.

That's fine... you vote for him. I'm disgusted with both parties of liars. I won't be.

Immie

 

[Listening]

At this point, I'd vote for GWB if he could run again.

Then I'd go outside and throw up (again).