Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

[The Rabbi]

Some on the right might argue that it's 'unfair' to judge a GOP president candidate in 2016 by the GWB administration, where Bush is perceived by many on the right to be an aberration, a 'RINO,' and not a 'true conservative.'


Perhaps.


But that still doesn't mitigate the fact that today republican lawmakers, officials, and other public office holders currently pursue agendas hostile to citizens' civil liberties.


There are republican lawmakers and official in many states and jurisdictions seeking to deny women their privacy rights, same-sex couples their equal protection rights, minorities their voting rights, and immigrants their due process rights.


And republican lawmakers and officials continue to seek to deny citizens their civil liberties knowing full-well that their efforts are in absolute violation of the Constitution.


For example: over 20 state and Federal courts have invalidated state measures denying same-sex couples access to marriage law. In Oklahoma recently that state's Supreme Court invalidated a measure designed to violate a woman's right to privacy, although current Constitutional jurisprudence strictly prohibits the states from doing so. And in Pennsylvania a state court invalidated a 'voter ID' law.


It is perfectly reasonable to assume, therefore, that a GOP candidate for president will indeed exhibit a similar ignorance of, and contempt for, the Constitution, its case law, and the civil liberties of the American people for whom he wishes to be president.

Would you please quit disseminating failed talking points from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That isn't an argument. That's propaganda. And itmakes you look stupid for repeating it.

 

[longknife]

I didn't vote because the answers didn't agree with my beliefs.

I think Gov Romney is a thousand times more qualified to be president than our current one.

But, he had his chance and let campaign staffers make stupid decisions keeping him from speaking up and explaining his goals clearly.

Running again would only be a distraction and all the press to center on him and ignore any of the faults of the Democrat candidate.\

The GOP needs a candidate with gubernatorial experience and have a VP candidate with Congression connections.

 

[RKMBrown]

I see Ryan as a geek who wants to be a constitutional conservative, but he's more like Batman's Robin, than presidential material.

Sounds like an opinion formed on the scenario that he first appeared in the harsh glow of the spotlight under Romney's shadow instead of any failing on Ryan's part.

I've been rather encouraged by everything I've read about Paul Ryan. He's up there with the Pauls, I'd put him on about the same level as Rand, and a notch below Ron.

I spent the time to read, in gory detail, the proposals he wrote up for tax reform and a few others. I was not impressed. I spent the time to listen to him, his speeches. Sorry but it felt like I was being pitched a sales job and he did not win me over. I did not come back with the impression he was what I would call a constitutional conservative. More a Main/New England type Neo-Con. Don't get me wrong, I do like him. Just not as much as others. I do trust him though, and that is a big plus. Ted Cruz, says the right things, but I don't trust him one bit, to much backstabbing, to much play for camera, to much lawyer speak. Though I do like Cruz better than Perry.

Rubio>Ron>Rand>Ryan>Cruz>Jeb>Romney>Christie>Perry>Hillary>communist party candidate

Here's a crazy thought... what about a Paul/Ryan ticket?

(On another note, I don't want Christie within a million miles of the red button)

Rand or Ron? I think I'd vote for Rand after more consideration, and I've voted for Ron a few times in the past. Of course I'd have to closely investigate their current positions again. There have been a few disconnects between me and Rand that I did not investigate yet. I've not given Rand the through investigation I did for Ron, Ryan, Romney, Rubio, Christie, and Cruz that would let me move Rand above all others. I'm concerned we may be looking at Rand mostly because he's his father's son.

I'd also like to here from that Louisiana governor, you know Jindal, the one that gets stuff done. Though Jindal does not have the traditional presence thing going for him. To many folks are looking for a ships captain, that will play against him.

Again, I will vote every time for the candidates I trust who hold the bulk of my views on politics. I don't have a litmus test per-se. It's more a weighted evaluation I like to do.

 

[RKMBrown]

I didn't vote because the answers didn't agree with my beliefs.

I think Gov Romney is a thousand times more qualified to be president than our current one.

But, he had his chance and let campaign staffers make stupid decisions keeping him from speaking up and explaining his goals clearly.

Running again would only be a distraction and all the press to center on him and ignore any of the faults of the Democrat candidate.\

The GOP needs a candidate with gubernatorial experience and have a VP candidate with Congression connections.

FYI Texas Governors are ceremonial positions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rand Paul would be the losing-est choice the GOP could make. Neither fish nor fowl.
We wont know for a while. All the candidates more or less look the same right now. A lot will depend on how they run their campaign, which is a good proxy for how they will run the White House. That is why Herman Cain is not president. Everyone wants someone who is not a professional politician, until they figure out that professionals are good at what they do.

 

[Machaut]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

All nominations are essentially "bought."

I said that this is the case in my post.

Sorry, but that's weak sauce.

It is my position that candidates who do not embody the principles or represent the positions of their party should not be nominated to represent that party in the general election. Romney--again, like many other candidates for various offices--does not do either of these things, and only won in the primary due to his massive amount of campaign spending and, I believe, an intentionally disproportionate amount of media attention. I don't think that the favorites of multi-millionaires and big businesses should be selected, almost by default, to represent a group of people with common goals and ideologies (i.e. a political party). Do you disagree?

 

[Jroc]

Would you vote for Romney in 2016?

In the Primary? You betcha!

LOL, nice try at humor. But you failed. We all know that you will vote for your fellow lesbian Hillary no matter who runs from either party. Maybe you can get Rosie O'Donnel to run for VP----------an all bull dyke ticket.

The point was they will vote for Romney to make sure there are two socialists on the ticket. This way the democrats can't loose.

Who is your candidate? We know who you are against, who are you for?

I voted libertarian last time. I would vote republican if the candidate were a Reagan like republican vs a Bush/Romney/Perry republican. For example, I would vote for Rubio. I'm very impressed with Mr. Rubio.

So in 2012 you helped obama win. are you happy about that?

No, I helped the libertarian win. If you don't like how the voting system works fix it. If it makes you feel better I would have voted for Romney over Obama, not my fault our voting system is ludicrously archaic. I'm not gonna throw out my principles and vote for a homophobic, moderate socialist to vote against a full out socialist. If you want my conservative vote your gonna have to have a conservative for me to vote for or some sort of run off election system. If Romney and Obama were the only two on the ticket, I would vote Romney.

The way I look at it you republican all voted for a socialist when a perfectly good conservative was on the ticket.

Hmmmm, I don't recall a libertarian winning the presidency in 2012. I understand what you are saying, but the fact is that that kind of thinking will insure that we continue to be ruled by raving liberals, and you will be helping them retain power. We may not like it, but thats the trueh.

Nah, it's your kind of thinking that you have to vote for the 2nd worst candidate to ensure that the worst candidate won't win that is screwing up our elections. If you folks would have actually voted for the most conservative candidate you would have voted for the libertarian, who by the way was a lauded REPUBLICAN prior to the start of the election season. Why do you republicans insist on voting neo-con party line? What have the neo-con pnac war hawk homophobe socialist pubs done for you?

You are refusing to get my point. Conservatives elected obama by not voting for the less liberal republican. Your voting pattern will keep liberals in power because you will always split the republican vote. The poll in this thread proves what I am saying.

No, that is not your shitty party's problem. Your shitty party's problem is that the Democratic coalition is now considerably larger and attracts more independents.

Conservatives came out in droves to vote for Romney. He still lost.

Was.... Independents are running from the dems like the plague now thanks to your cult leader Obama...You're a follower, keep drinking the Kool-aid and spewing stupid talking points

 

[Jroc]

When republicans control both the executive and legislative branches, they have a propensity to increase the size of the Federal government, to increase the deficit, and to start illegal wars – given republican hostility to citizens' civil liberties today, along with their contempt for the Constitution and its case law, as well as the rule of law, there is clearly no reason to vote for a republican presidential candidate.

And Democrats have been the voice of fiscal restraint, right?
Wars?
Korea-Harry Truman
Vietnam-JFK.
Dems suck and when they're done the public votes in the GOP to clean up the mess.

Cough-cough:

Bush 41: Iraq 1
Bush 43: Iraq 2, Afghanistan

Cough-cough.

Those were such minor wars you might as well include Clinton-Somalia, Balkans.
/fail, you derp.

You just called Iraq 2 a "minor" war??





Yes, I think you have permanently left the land of reality for a permanent hiatus in the land of pretty unicorns.

The most expensive war in our nation's history, and you call it a minor war...

This is a classic fake-Rabbi fail, one for the history books.

actually adjusted for inflation I highly doubt Iraq is the most costly war stat-man..... Check your facts

 

[The Rabbi]

[QUOTE="Jroc, post: 9681978, member: 25505"


actually adjusted for inflation I highly doubt Iraq is the most costly war stat-man..... Check your facts[/QUOTE]
Adjusted for inflation and quality of military equipment. For a "major war" it was fought on the cheap. Casualties were very low. We lost more men in one afternoon in WW2 than in the entire war.
But Statistheilhitler is among the most foolish partisans here.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I picked "No Romney is not conservative enough".

Romney didn't win the Republican nomination for president, he bought it. He's not the only one; the general trend in primaries is whoever spends the most money gets it. Why anyone who looks at the candidate's positions and track record would vote for Romney is beyond me. In 2012, he was by far the weakest candidate in the field during the primary, and had no substantial differences with Obama in the general.

Why do people plug Romney? Do you actually think he's the best person for the job?

All nominations are essentially "bought."

I said that this is the case in my post.

Sorry, but that's weak sauce.

It is my position that candidates who do not embody the principles or represent the positions of their party should not be nominated to represent that party in the general election. Romney--again, like many other candidates for various offices--does not do either of these things, and only won in the primary due to his massive amount of campaign spending and, I believe, an intentionally disproportionate amount of media attention. I don't think that the favorites of multi-millionaires and big businesses should be selected, almost by default, to represent a group of people with common goals and ideologies (i.e. a political party). Do you disagree?

Dude, the Republicans don't emody the positions they represent. If they did, we wouldn't have a million big govt. programs and astronomical debt. Truth be told, the reason why Mitt beat out Newt, Santorum and those other 'establishment' Republicans is because he's more honorable, successful, and trustworthy.

And he beat out Paul because most Republicans don't have the courage to get back to pure Constitutional rigors.

 

[TheOldSchool]

In response to some recent posts above:

Rand Paul is one of the few Republican candidates who I wouldn't be terrified of winning the white house. I think a majority of the rest of them would try to involve us in multiple wars in the first years of their presidency.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

If you took out the dem d-bags voting against Romney, the results of this poll likely are quite good for Romney. At first, I didn't think he would ever run again. And he has said that he would not run again. But no politician announces their intention to run so far in advance. I think we may very well see another run by Romney. And I think he would do very well because a lot of the Dem base frankly think that Hillary is a flat out c-word.

 

[TheOldSchool]

If you took out the dem d-bags voting against Romney, the results of this poll likely are quite good for Romney. At first, I didn't think he would ever run again. And he has said that he would not run again. But no politician announces their intention to run so far in advance. I think we may very well see another run by Romney. And I think he would do very well because a lot of the Dem base frankly think that Hillary is a flat out c-word.

Dude I love your train of thought. Go Romney!!! Romney 2016!!!

Do it! I dare you

 

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

 

[ScarletRage]

Where is the no because I don't care to write a check to billionaires?

 

[Youch]

Poll

Who are the idiots who voted that he is a loser? Unaccomplished sour-pusses, no doubt... His entire career has been successful by any measure. He lost the Presidential effort to a black man who offered freebies to the masses, and who picked a VP candidate who wilted in debate against what must be the dumbest man ever to hold such office. While not a perfect man (who is?), he would make Obama look the fool if he replaced him. We can only hope. That said, for the nation's sake, I hope someone else gets the nomination, as our country is far to important and fragile to screw the 2016 election.

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

 

[House]

That said, for the nation's sake, I hope someone else gets the nomination, as our country is far to important and fragile to screw the 2016 election.

Now there you are talking some sense.

 

[House]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

 

[Youch]

That's a great way to run conservatives to the independents.

I'm pretty sure the American public made their opinion of that shitclown known time & again.

People who speak like that have small penises. Psych 101...

What, am I supposed to vehemently deny your unfounded claim based on a course you most likely never even heard of, let alone passed?

(hint: Psych 101 focuses on the brain's physiological makeup. Not psychology, and certainly not Freud)


... nah.

Nice try.

People who ridicule the success of others are driven by compensation. We all compensate, of course; that being a defense mechanism, a coping skill. But to diminish the accomplishments of others reeks of a small penis. You can "vehemently" do as you wish. I simply read your words.

Oh, and you underscore my point, in spades, by referring to my education without knowing a monkey's rectum about it. Why is that, if not for a small penis? Some other envy?

Say something smart! You would rather have another liberal in the White House?