2012 Election: The ATS Republican Straw Poll

Originally posted by AmericanDaughter
I am a Ron Paul Fan but this time I am going for Herman Cain.
He and I are so on the same page.
Too bad he is getting the msm smother treatment even more than Ron and That's going some.
My only issue with him is his past bout with cancer.

Yeah, Cain is my second choice out of this particular group. He actually has a lot to say.

Why is it a problem with you that he had cancer though? ( And I did not know he did)

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


i decided when the last time RP ran and got bought out .. so .. manipulated out or should i say...shut down..all my faith is in...........well.. not anyone currently in congress or other wise..

it's a shell game

I just want to make sure everyone is aware of this about Perry-
This, in and of itself is reason enough to COMPLETELY DISMISS this charlatan.

Texas Governer Orders STD Vaccine for all Schoolgirls

repugnant, and more importantly, ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

I WILL NOT STAND FOR IT ANYMORE.

RON PAUL OR BUST-
and by bust, I mean MOVE TO FIJI, live in a cabin on the beach and just EXIST ahhhhh paradise and true freedom

I think you should have a bit more options on why someone would choose Ron Paul, for instance -

He isn't bought out by corporations.
He actually defends the constitution instead of destroying it.
One of the last honest, and sincere politicians.

im pretty sure Ron Paul is gonna have a epic win in this poll here

apparently, almost ALL of ATS supports him lol

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I gotta admit, I'm surprised after reading so many of your posts, that you don't support RP. Is it because you're skeptical that he's sincere?

No, I believe him to be sincere. I believe he errs too far to the side of caution in foreign policy and defense, whereas most of the others err way too far on the side of bellicosity in the same matters. There is a sweet spot where we don't have to go around kicking in every one else's doors, and at the same time we don't have to dismantle the military and rely on the good will of our opponents.

For example, I absolutely would not withdraw troops from Afghanistan at this point - but I would give the Joint Chiefs a directive that they'd better start waging that war like they mean it, or else buy a fishing license for their imminent retirement. The way it is now is unacceptable, but so is a hasty retreat. We did that hasty retreat from Afghanistan once before, and it didn't work out all that well for us. Pakistan appears to be developing a serious need for some special attention, and neither Iraq nor Libya should ever have even made the table for discussion of actions there.

I'm with him on Iran, too, up to a point. I don't care what they do with nuclear stuff inside their own borders, develop power, develop bombs, feed it to their kids, I don't care, That's their country, and they can do what they want in it. I'd make it clear, however, that ANY use of nukes outside their own borders would result in an awful and instant erasure of their viability as living organisms both now and for a few centuries to come.

Fiscally, he's right on the money - no pun intended, but it works

One other thing that bugs me is his reluctance to break away and get rid of the "R" beside his name. That's a purely personal problem, and not insurmountable. I've developed an aversion to Republicans ever since the party abandoned us during the neocon takeover, which aversion I expect to remain in place until such time as I actually see some good come from them (the party as a whole, rather than individuals), and I doubt that will be any time soon, if ever. They talk a good game as a party around election time, but they don't produce when the rubber meets the road. In that they are the same as the Democrats. I 'd have to SEE them do something right rather than just hear them SAY they're going to do something right this time around if only I'd come back to the party and give them my vote back.

Putting an "I" next to his name would go a long way in gaining my support. "Birds of a feather" and all that.

I would vote for Obama before I would vote for Romney, which is to say that there is no chance I would vote for Romney at all. Unfortunately, I believe that the powers in power have already chosen Romney to be the Republican runner, and the rest of this is just a dog and pony show. As far as I can tell, Romney can't decide if he's going to be a Republican or a Democrat, and so takes the middle road of CALLING himself a Republican and ACTING like a Democrat, hoping no one will notice. it could be that's just in vogue these days among Republicans, to please their neocon masters, but I'm not buying in to it.

George Bush was another cut from that same mold, and we see how well THAT turned out.

I hear if you vote for Michele Bachmann, Randy Travis will come to your house or church for a "free" concert.

Ron Paul.

National policy,

I wanted to select more but wanted it to be more accurate.

I thought SkepticOverlord was trying to make a point by deliberately making the Ron Paul option void. Perhaps I was the only one who thought, "Oh look it's rigged, maybe he's trying to make a point about the MSM." Back on topic though, does anyone here actually support any of the other candidates?

Ron Paul here of course!!!


I was hopeing for and "All the Above" choice on the second question!

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


I'm just afraid it will come back while he's in office. ( I hope it Never return but sadly it always seems to)
But if Ron Paul or Perry, Bachmann or even Sarah was his VP then no problems.

Been supporting Ron Paul since 2007 and never looked back.

Many people are afraid of his foreign policy but it is the only one that makes sense, it is either you want peace or you don't.

All of our nations problems are rooted somewhere and it takes a certain type of person to really get in there and just nip it at the bud. Forget band-aids laid over one another every 2 to 4 years, it is either we solve the problem or we don't.

Ron Paul on CNN right now

Originally posted by nenothtu
For example, I absolutely would not withdraw troops from Afghanistan at this point - but I would give the Joint Chiefs a directive that they'd better start waging that war like they mean it, or else buy a fishing license for their imminent retirement. The way it is now is unacceptable, but so is a hasty retreat. We did that hasty retreat from Afghanistan once before, and it didn't work out all that well for us. Pakistan appears to be developing a serious need for some special attention, and neither Iraq nor Libya should ever have even made the table for discussion of actions there.

We'll have to disagree on this one. We can't afford it anymore. I believe that we should of course be able to defend ourselves, or protect ourselves from threats by criminal extremist organizations. But we need to fight smarter, not harder. I believe we are in Afghanistan still, because there are special interests there. Perhaps that Enron pipeline, taken over by god knows who? Something else the public is not made aware? I don't know, but you know what they say about Afghanistan, graveyard of empires and all that. We should be fighting extremists in no man's lands with good intelligence, and surgical special ops strikes. Not massive regular army buildup. It's too easy for a coporation to buy a few of our corrupt politicians to send our military to protect their interests on the taxpayer dime, and alot cheaper for them than hiring a Blackwater like firm. As for Pak, if we're out of the region, they can't cause much trouble for us. Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among those in the military. He'll bring them home, to defend this nation from symetrical threats. Assymetrical threats need assymetrical solutions, IMO. I don't think RP's position is to take it on the chin.

I'm with him on Iran, too, up to a point. I don't care what they do with nuclear stuff inside their own borders, develop power, develop bombs, feed it to their kids, I don't care, That's their country, and they can do what they want in it. I'd make it clear, however, that ANY use of nukes outside their own borders would result in an awful and instant erasure of their viability as living organisms both now and for a few centuries to come.

I'm sure Israel would make that happen anyway. Iran can't hit us, we know who they would hit, but they would be done. Plus, if Israel feels they're a threat, let them take them out.

Putting an "I" next to his name would go a long way in gaining my support. "Birds of a feather" and all that.

Didn't that have to do having to register as a Republican to run for the house seat in his district or something? I believe he stated he'll run as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination, since he's not running for the House seat again. But if he does get the nomination, the media REALLY wouldn't be able to marginalize him anymore like they do now. I'm gonna switch from Independent, to Republican just to vote in the primaries, then switch back.

Unfortunately, I believe that the powers in power have already chosen Romney to be the Republican runner, and the rest of this is just a dog and pony show.

Probably, but if enough people vote against the establishment, I wonder if they will be able to hide it. I'm hoping to see such a decisive victory, that they can't rig it. At this point, it's the only hope I feel we have to get this country back on track.

Originally posted by Centurionx
Ron Paul.

National policy,

I wanted to select more but wanted it to be more accurate.

I picked the same. Hahaa I'm not gonna lie one of the biggest reason I like Ron Paul is he will sign a bill legalizing online poker in the USA unlike most of the other candidates.

Originally posted by dizzie_lizzie79
Ron Paul on CNN right now

Saw it on Piers Morgan. He would do alot better in interviews if he stays a little more on message, and drill down on what the interviewer is asking. He tackled the "wants to legalize heroin" thing when Piers kinda steered him back in. When Piers asked him about abortion, he went into his personal feelings which is fine to an extent I know he was traumatized by the late term abortion he witnessed. But he should have made it clear up front that he would leave it up to the states, and that he doesn't believe the federal government can constitutionally ban abortion. To somebody who relies on TV, that was a bit of a lost opportunity because he came across as advocating the federal government banning abortion, which isn't his position.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Been supporting Ron Paul since 2007 and never looked back.

Many people are afraid of his foreign policy but it is the only one that makes sense, it is either you want peace or you don't.

Peace is one thing, but obsequiousness in the pursuit of peace is another thing altogether. The most peaceful times I've ever personally know are those times when folks knew beyond doubt that I could and would rain hell down on them if they troubled me, and would give them the shirt off my back if they didn't, and needed it.

The objective should be to get along in peace with all people as far as possible, and make it plain that if they don't want peace, you are always willing and able to accommodate them, in spades and much to their detriment.

International politics is much like interpersonal relationships (after all, BOTH start and end with people), but on a scale writ large.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I would like to see a poll that asked for your ranked top 3 choices. That would be a better predictor of where the votes would go as candidates drop out.

Currently, I have 3 or 4 favorites, but odds are that very few of them will still be in the race by time my primary comes around.

reply to post by 27jd



HAHA...we were thinking of doing the same thing with switching from independent to republican and then back!!!

Originally posted by 27jd

We'll have to disagree on this one. We can't afford it anymore. I believe that we should of course be able to defend ourselves, or protect ourselves from threats by criminal extremist organizations. But we need to fight smarter, not harder. I believe we are in Afghanistan still, because there are special interests there. Perhaps that Enron pipeline, taken over by god knows who? Something else the public is not made aware? I don't know, but you know what they say about Afghanistan, graveyard of empires and all that. We should be fighting extremists in no man's lands with good intelligence, and surgical special ops strikes. Not massive regular army buildup. It's too easy for a coporation to buy a few of our corrupt politicians to send our military to protect their interests on the taxpayer dime, and alot cheaper for them than hiring a Blackwater like firm. As for Pak, if we're out of the region, they can't cause much trouble for us. Ron Paul is the most popular candidate among those in the military. He'll bring them home, to defend this nation from symetrical threats. Assymetrical threats need assymetrical solutions, IMO. I don't think RP's position is to take it on the chin.

No, we're not that t far into disagreement here. That's exactly what I meant by "fight like they mean it". That war should have been won inside of 3 years, and then we should have gotten on with the business of helping Afghans build the Afghanistan they want, rather than the one we want them to have. When Kabul fell, we had 100 soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan. Just 100 SpecOps types. Then, the General staff dropped the ball by insisting on a massive influx of regulars, useless as it gets in an asymmetrical conflict, but good to gain ribbons for the higher ups. In my opinion, THAT is why we are still there. Pipelines are far easier to get and maintain in peace, rather than in war where they may be blown into bit at any instant.

The "graveyard of empires" only applies to incompetents, which describes our current General Staff to a tee, as it did the Soviets and the British in their endeavors there. Both Alexander and Genghis conquered Afghanistan by NOT being incompetent. There just isn't any way to fight a war gently, and too many cooks get in each other's way and spoil the broth.

As you say, it really should have been pursued through intelligence gathering and surgical SpecOps strikes, without a massive regular troop build up. Regulars are best employed in regular wars, which we may not see any time soon. The biggest build up should have been nothing more than a couple of reaction battalions to clean up nests that the SpecOps and intel guys smoked out. Waziristan and the Swat Valley in particular should be levelled from end to end as a sample of what will happen if they don't stop giving aid and comfort to the enemy. All financial assistance to Pakistan should be stopped cold until the ISI and certain government elements get with the program. I can't see giving them money to assist the enemy.

It's my understanding that Ron Paul's position is to bring 'em all home, win or loss, and decommission the majority of the military. That sounds a lot like an invitation to mayhem to me.

I'm sure Israel would make that happen anyway. Iran can't hit us, we know who they would hit, but they would be done. Plus, if Israel feels they're a threat, let them take them out.

Well, I'm not specifically thinking of their threat to Israel, but to the region as a whole. On top of that, I'm still a bit upset with the Iranian penchant for taking hostages.

Didn't that have to do having to register as a Republican to run for the house seat in his district or something? I believe he stated he'll run as an Independent if he doesn't get the nomination, since he's not running for the House seat again. But if he does get the nomination, the media REALLY wouldn't be able to marginalize him anymore like they do now. I'm gonna switch from Independent, to Republican just to vote in the primaries, then switch back.

Well, like I said that's just a personal problem for me, and not entirely insurmountable. I think that if he had a solid courage of his convictions, he'd release the republican coat-tails right now, and actively start an Independent campaign against BOTH of the major parties.

Unfortunately, I believe that the powers in power have already chosen Romney to be the Republican runner, and the rest of this is just a dog and pony show.

Probably, but if enough people vote against the establishment, I wonder if they will be able to hide it. I'm hoping to see such a decisive victory, that they can't rig it. At this point, it's the only hope I feel we have to get this country back on track.

They will do what they want, hidden or not. Florida, 2000 A.D.

I personally think that the Democratic Conventions in the last election were rigged as well. Clinton had a solid lead, then one day I woke up, turned on the news, and it was suddenly upside down. Ditto for the Republicans, 2008. There is no way that McCain should have prevailed against the other contenders, but with his progressive-like stance, he was a shoe-in for the Powers in the Power. Not a nickel's worth of difference between he and Obama, so after those rigs, it didn't matter at all which candidate the laity selected. On top of that, he ran what was probably the weakest campaign I have ever witnessed, and I'll bet there was a good, solid, reason for that beyond incompetence.

In this cycle, Romney is the new mcCain. Progressive to a fault, Republican in name only, and slow out of the gate. A guaranteed loser.