|
Post by J12 on Nov 8, 2012 9:59:03 GMT -5
For what it's worth, my whole family reluctantly voted Obama, but would've wholeheartedly supported Ron Paul had he been the Republican nominee or stayed in the race.
I disagree with Paul on his pro-life stance, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on Nov 8, 2012 12:09:50 GMT -5
Ugh. Do we really need this argument for the umpteenth time? No. I didn't think so. No, there's really no argument to be had. If no one else is on the ballot (and they wouldn't be), the Republicans would've voted for Paul -- AT LEAST FOR ONE ELECTION -- until they could get one of "their" guys back on the ticket or on the top of another party which gained major party status. For what it's worth, my whole family reluctantly voted Obama, but would've wholeheartedly supported Ron Paul had he been the Republican nominee or stayed in the race. I disagree with Paul on his pro-life stance, but that's about it. And he would've let the states determine their own abortion laws, not the Federal government.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Nov 8, 2012 13:33:07 GMT -5
I think I might back Rubio to win in 2016. Generally parties get 8 years before being kicked out, and he'd get a lot of the Hispanic vote from the Dems. I don't want it to happen but at 25/1 I think I could at least make some money off it.
|
|
bencw
Main Eventer
30 refs. aka ecworiginal.
Joined on: Dec 22, 2008 8:04:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,273
|
Post by bencw on Nov 8, 2012 14:13:03 GMT -5
is it true that presidents must be religious or is that some sort of really, really sick joke?
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Nov 8, 2012 14:39:36 GMT -5
is it true that presidents must be religious or is that some sort of really, really sick joke? You don't have to be overtly so these days, but if it were to get out that you weren't Christian, or if you came out as an atheist, you would probably not get the nomination, or have a chance at winning. Especially as a Republican unfortunately. Look at how people did (and still do) accuse Obama of being a Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 16:53:38 GMT -5
Ugh. Do we really need this argument for the umpteenth time? No. I didn't think so. No, there's really no argument to be had. If no one else is on the ballot (and they wouldn't be), the Republicans would've voted for Paul -- AT LEAST FOR ONE ELECTION -- until they could get one of "their" guys back on the ticket or on the top of another party which gained major party status. No, they would've either stayed home or the party would've split with a legit 3rd party candidate. Republicans would rather a guy in office who they can work with (Obama) than a guy in office who they can't work with (Paul). Besides that, the Obama campaign would've tarred and feathered Paul as a complete whack job from day one. In any case, it's a moot point since the Republican voters rejected Paul at the polls in every single primary.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 17:13:14 GMT -5
No, there's really no argument to be had. If no one else is on the ballot (and they wouldn't be), the Republicans would've voted for Paul -- AT LEAST FOR ONE ELECTION -- until they could get one of "their" guys back on the ticket or on the top of another party which gained major party status. No, they would've either stayed home or the party would've split with a legit 3rd party candidate. Republicans would rather a guy in office who they can work with (Obama) than a guy in office who they can't work with (Paul). Besides that, the Obama campaign would've tarred and feathered Paul as a complete whack job from day one. In any case, it's a moot point since the Republican voters rejected Paul at the polls in every single primary. you don't think that there were strong primal forces against the Paul campaign through the definition of Paul by the media and the other candidates? I've looked at the polls and he was polling just as well against Obama as Romney.. if that isn't true then could you please explain the polls?
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 18:16:22 GMT -5
No, they would've either stayed home or the party would've split with a legit 3rd party candidate. Republicans would rather a guy in office who they can work with (Obama) than a guy in office who they can't work with (Paul). Besides that, the Obama campaign would've tarred and feathered Paul as a complete whack job from day one. In any case, it's a moot point since the Republican voters rejected Paul at the polls in every single primary. you don't think that there were strong primal forces against the Paul campaign through the definition of Paul by the media and the other candidates? I've looked at the polls and he was polling just as well against Obama as Romney.. if that isn't true then could you please explain the polls? If Paul was indeed so popular, then why was he rejected over and over again at the polls? A poll of just Obama vs Paul isn't realistic at all given that the party is not going to back him at all in reality. There is no way in seven hells Paul could ever unify the party.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 23, 2024 20:16:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 18:19:58 GMT -5
So what happens if someone kills Obama? Does the VP step up?
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Nov 8, 2012 18:21:35 GMT -5
So what happens if someone kills Obama? Does the VP step up?
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 23, 2024 20:16:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 18:23:01 GMT -5
So what happens if someone kills Obama? Does the VP step up? Nah, that's when they bring in Mariano Rivera to save the term.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 23, 2024 20:16:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 18:27:14 GMT -5
So what happens if someone kills Obama? Does the VP step up? It was actually a serious question, save your face palms for someone who cares.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 18:36:24 GMT -5
you don't think that there were strong primal forces against the Paul campaign through the definition of Paul by the media and the other candidates? I've looked at the polls and he was polling just as well against Obama as Romney.. if that isn't true then could you please explain the polls? If Paul was indeed so popular, then why was he rejected over and over again at the polls? A poll of just Obama vs Paul isn't realistic at all given that the party is not going to back him at all in reality. There is no way in seven hells Paul could ever unify the party. So you just flat out reject the validity of those poll numbers then. I am not as skeptical. I believe Paul would have the backing of the party and then some if he won the nomination. I don't believe that the party would splinter off, as you say, into two combatting ones in that scenario. I do believe, however, that the party was more united against the President than they were behind Romney. Republicans still remember the wounds that Perot left in 1992, where Perot took votes from them.
|
|
|
Post by Lorenzo Alcazar on Nov 8, 2012 18:40:31 GMT -5
It was actually a serious question, save your face palms for someone who cares. You are 28 years old and I assume have been to at least SOME school.....the chain of command for the Presidency of the United States has been in place since 1792 with the signing of the Presidential Succession Act. I mean, at your age, you should know this. Unless you aren't from America, but even still......
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 19:17:50 GMT -5
If Paul was indeed so popular, then why was he rejected over and over again at the polls? A poll of just Obama vs Paul isn't realistic at all given that the party is not going to back him at all in reality. There is no way in seven hells Paul could ever unify the party. So you just flat out reject the validity of those poll numbers then. I am not as skeptical. I believe Paul would have the backing of the party and then some if he won the nomination. I don't believe that the party would splinter off, as you say, into two combatting ones in that scenario. I do believe, however, that the party was more united against the President than they were behind Romney. Republicans still remember the wounds that Perot left in 1992, where Perot took votes from them. Why would the party back a guy who was rejected at the polls in every single primary?
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 19:47:06 GMT -5
So you just flat out reject the validity of those poll numbers then. I am not as skeptical. I believe Paul would have the backing of the party and then some if he won the nomination. I don't believe that the party would splinter off, as you say, into two combatting ones in that scenario. I do believe, however, that the party was more united against the President than they were behind Romney. Republicans still remember the wounds that Perot left in 1992, where Perot took votes from them. Why would the party back a guy who was rejected at the polls in every single primary? I think we are on a different page. I was speaking hypothetically.
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Sept 23, 2024 20:16:12 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2012 19:49:57 GMT -5
It was actually a serious question, save your face palms for someone who cares. You are 28 years old and I assume have been to at least SOME school.....the chain of command for the Presidency of the United States has been in place since 1792 with the signing of the Presidential Succession Act. I mean, at your age, you should know this. Unless you aren't from America, but even still...... Well, I asked because I really don't remember. EDIT: Found it, thanks for all of your wonderful help.
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 19:52:01 GMT -5
Why would the party back a guy who was rejected at the polls in every single primary? I think we are on a different page. I was speaking hypothetically. I'm speaking realistically. We could run polls of Obama vs Mickey Mouse if we wanted to. Mickey Mouse is obviously never going to be nominated so any polls are pretty bogus. Presuming Paul were nominated you'd have a guy who was hugely unpopular in his own party and you think the party would back him just because they're mindless morons? Not a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Tim of thee on Nov 8, 2012 19:59:53 GMT -5
I think we are on a different page. I was speaking hypothetically. Presuming Paul were nominated you'd have a guy who was hugely unpopular in his own party and you think the party would back him just because they're mindless morons? Not a chance. if the recent electoral season is any indication, the Republicans were wrong to field Romney.. as I said before, Republicans would have voted for anybody with an R by their name.. you never really answered my question earlier this year when I asked who you would nominate for the Republican nominee
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on Nov 8, 2012 20:14:20 GMT -5
Presuming Paul were nominated you'd have a guy who was hugely unpopular in his own party and you think the party would back him just because they're mindless morons? Not a chance. if the recent electoral season is any indication, the Republicans were wrong to field Romney.. as I said before, Republicans would have voted for anybody with an R by their name.. you never really answered my question earlier this year when I asked who you would nominate for the Republican nominee I can't see any scenario where Republicans would vote for a guy they know is not going to work with them and who will work counter to what they want. Why would they elect that guy? Personally, I think the best thing they could've done long term was nominate Santorum. He would've lost. He would've been the polar opposite of Obama. He would've shown that the party being run by the right wing religious nuts is not sustainable and not a good idea at all. He also would've given us a pretty clear choice between him and Obama. The two are nothing alike.
|
|