Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Newt or Mitt who would you vote for if it came down to those two for the nomination?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   
RON PAUL 2012!!!!

Both Newt and Mitt are scum banker boy toys, I would not vote for any of them. If I had a gun pointed at my head, I would say newt, because of experience. If Ron doesn't get the nomination, I will write him in.

I don't vote based on party affiliation, and neither should you.

RON PAUL 2012!!!!




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

Originally posted by IFeelForty
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


That's because it shuts out a fair and open discussion. You can ignore the Paul supporters if it offends you that much, but in the end we are all just people with an opinion on a politician. I can't very well make a thread and say "no gays aloud". I haven't voted since I got registered decades ago (didn't know about Paul last time round) so its unfair to label me as brainwashed, I didn't vote for the current fuhrer messiah to evidence that
edit on 26-1-2012 by IFeelForty because: (no reason given)


This is the thread about Newt or Romney as there are few positive threads about both of those candidates on here. There are millions of Ron Paul threads on here. So why can't I have my say Newt VS MItt?


I don't think anyone is saying you can't have a "newt or mitt" thread and discussion as we are in one right now...However saying certain people can't participate and ommiting an entire "part of the discussion" (RP) to have the thread is pretty impractical in unrealistic in an open/public forum of a multitude of differing views and opinions.

And just as you go and grace every RP thread with your opinion/views the RP supporters are sure to grace your Newt/Mitt thread with their views even at your request for them not to.

You are in an open and public forum and so long as its "on-topic" there isn't a lot of legitimate ground by which to start censoring the discussion...and RP is VERY much on topic...even if you don't want him to be.

Honestly you could forsee this coming could you not?

edit on 26-1-2012 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


ETA:
OP and Title was edited while I was typing this. Kudos to the OP, that will make for a much more civil discussion, Thank You!


I'm going to leave up my original post, just in case anyone has already read it, but once again, kudos to the OP for making the correction, I think it will help the thread immensely.




I edited it for you guys. Don't know why I have to be politically correct when talking about Ron Paul "supporters" when you call Newt and Mitt horrible names too.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Sly1one
 


But at least I answer and read the posts some of these people clearly do not! As I have stated in my OP this is for Newt and Mitt supporters!!! You can make a thread about Ron Paul if you want.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by sicksonezer0
RON PAUL 2012!!!!

Both Newt and Mitt are scum banker boy toys, I would not vote for any of them. If I had a gun pointed at my head, I would say newt, because of experience. If Ron doesn't get the nomination, I will write him in.

I don't vote based on party affiliation, and neither should you.

RON PAUL 2012!!!!


Did you not read my OP?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
If it comes down to Newt or Mitt on the ballot, I'll write in Ron Paul. That's the thing about the freedom to choose who you want for president, regardless of who's on the ballot. I can write in Santa Clause if I choose, so your question is moot. If Mitt's on the ballot and there are folks who really, really, really want Santorum or Newt, they still have the choice to vote for their pick.

But way to go trolling for Ron Paul supporters to chime in. What did you think would happen?
edit on 26-1-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Thank you I should rename the post! But I don't think it would stop Ron Paul people from hijacking this page. There are too many of them


Which is exactly why you not only shouldn't, but simply can't exclude them from discussion.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


You don't have to be politically correct, but it makes for a much more civil discussion. I happen to agree with you that Ron Paul supporters are fanatical and annoying.
It often hurts his cause more than it helps it.

Equally fanatical and annoying is the way the MSM feigns and panders to Romney, Newt, and back in the day Palin, but it is what it is. They do what they think will be popular.

You didn't have to change your OP, but I'm glad you did, because I think you'll get a better discussion this way.

I'll even participate in your experiment now.

If I absolutely had to choose between Newt and Mitt, it would certainly be Newt! By a MILE!
I actually like Newt, but I'm afraid he won't follow through on anything he is promising. He has been brilliant in the debates, his platform is similar to Pauls, and very solid, and he has the support of his party to help him accomplish his platform.

My problem with Newt, as all the other candidates have pointed out, this is a new Newt. He doesn't have the record to show that he really means what he says. He is a flip-flopper, and he is entrenched in the DC status-quo, and I highly doubt he will actually follow through on his campaign promises. But, he is still preferable to Mitt, at least he is talking the right game.
edit on 26-1-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I can see a Ron Paul Vice Presidency under Newt. They seem to like each other. He always points out the MSM bias towards Ron Paul and always acknowledges him, very much like Perry. But that is all I will say about Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjf3rd77

I edited it for you guys. Don't know why I have to be politically correct when talking about Ron Paul "supporters" when you call Newt and Mitt horrible names too.


Note called "them" bad names, not people who support them. Granted, there are some that attack the actual supporters, but there are people that think Satan is the real Jesus and that there are shape shifting reptillians, hope that clears it up. You do have the chance to defend your candidate as well.

And thank you for changing the op

Edit-the only way I'm not voting Ron Paul is if he is running as newts or mits vp. I have my limits. It would be like voting for Obama because you like Biden

edit on 26-1-2012 by IFeelForty because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Do you think Newt truly believes and is committed to his platform? Do you think he has the integrity and guts to buck up against his own party when his platform is neutered and morphed to fit the Republican Establishment agenda instead of the common man who supported and elected him?

In my opinion, there is no evidence of integrity, guts, or commitment in Newt, and that is precisely why I don't trust him enough to vote for him. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that he lacks commitment and integrity.
edit on 26-1-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
If I absolutely had to choose between Newt and Mitt (doncha just love their cute lil' names??), I choose neither.

Isn't it from a Rush song that, if I choose not to choose, I've still made a choice?

I absolutely, utterly detest Newt. He's been like a pig in a truffle patch the whole time he's been in D.C. Now he wants to get into the biggest truffle patch of all. He won't get my vote to accomplish this. Perhaps most of you are too young to remember his ethics violations and payoffs. I am not. He is a warmongering chickenhawk who will drag us into WW3 to satisfy his biggest monetary supporter, Adelson.

As for Romney, he is totally plastic, utterly insincere, and his work for Bain shows that he has no qualms about sending people into the street unemployed. He missed his calling as a department store mannequin. President? I think not.

Both of these men are AIPAC stooges. I would rather have both my hands broken than vote for either of them.

I know that's not what you wanted to read on your "Mitt or Newt: Choose One" thread, but my choice is NEITHER, and I stand by that.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I am focusing on the future not the past. Who will be the best person to help our economy, in a practical manner. I do not believe that Ron Paul will ever get his ideas to pass the senate and the house, especially since he will veto everything he disagrees with. Which appears to be a lot! If he doesn't compromise, they won't compromise and that will be worse than Obama, because Obama at least promised to compromise and everyone ate that up!

So I think Newt will be good for the economy as he has done so under reagan and clinton which many on both sides believe to be the best presidents in modern day memory!



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
If it came down to those two, I wouldn't vote AT ALL. Although I can't vote even if that was that particular scenario. Not old enough.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
I only ever liked Ron Paul for his foreign policy and opposition to the establishment. His Libertarian views clash with my reactionary Conservative views and I was never going to vote for him anyway. Rick Santorum talks good on manufacturing and social issues but the guy loses me with his ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran’ rhetoric and his overall demeanor which bothers me. So, of the two left; Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, I have even more to say about them.

Newt Gingrich was the Washington insider from the late ‘70s to the late ‘90s. It was Gingrich who fought so hard for NAFTA, WTO, and the other globalist pieces of legislation which finished wiping out our industrial base. He wrote a preface to a book by an admitted Communist which called for ending the US Constitution and creating a world government run by NGOs. Newt was angry with Reagan for not being enough of a chicken hawk. He fought tirelessly to defend affirmative action while Speaker and to crush any conservative policy efforts. It was thanks to Newt that the Neoconservative wing of the party took control. Now he wants to run as the conservative outsider when he is nothing more than a progressive Republican globalist, a self – admitted “Rockefeller Republican”, and admirer of FDR.

Gingrich can debate better than anyone else definitely has very big ideas, and I admire his vast historical knowledge. I never once doubted his intellect but I have doubted his morals and ethics. He was punished in the House for ethics violations, leaving his ex – wife while she was dying of cancer, going after Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob while he is cheating on his own wife, and working for Fannie Mae; that is not exactly my idea of a very upstanding man.

Mitt Romney served as Governor for four years in the most liberal state in the nation with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the legislature. His only time spent in office was serving in Massachusetts. Romney learned his ability to act like a perfect civil servant because of his father who had served as Governor of Michigan and ran for President. Romney, like his father, were both CEO’s of companies and this also served to establish his personality. He has carried on his family tradition of being a Mormon missionary and even rescued the Salt Lake City 2002 Olympics.

Romney gave over a million dollars to his church, raised four intelligent sons, has been with the same woman for over forty years, and protested against the 1960s counterculture protesters. He has ‘flip – flopped’ on many issues such as abortion, passed health care legislation in Massachusetts which was the model for ObamaCare, and is a perfect example of a technocrat.

If you are asking me to choose between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, then I choose Mitt Romney. He is far from great and I disagree with him on most issues enormously. But at least he does not want to appoint Sarah Palin to the VP slot and John Bolton to Secretary of State. Romney did not sign the preface to a book calling for the abolition of American sovereignty and praised FDR for being a good Progressive. My view is that no one in the Republican Party is a true Conservative and I do not mean just this election cycle. But to dismiss Romney for being a moderate in his home state as defining him to be a moderate – to – liberal as President is quite ridiculous, I would remind you it was the Massachusetts moderate Calvin Coolidge who went on to become the most laissez – faire president since Grover Cleveland.

edit on 1/26/2012 by Misoir because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 





I am focusing on the future not the past.

Learning from the mistakes of the past gives us an insight into the future .

Newt Gingrich's Skeleton Closet: Scandals, Quotes, and Character

Gingrich's story kept changing through the controversy. First, Newt's spokesman said that Murdoch knew nothing about Gingrich and the book deal. On Friday January 13, Newt's spokesman admitted that Murdoch actually met Newt on a park bench the week before the deal was made, but didn't talk about it. He also said he knew nothing about Murdoch's lobbyist being at their meeting. The next day, he admitted the lobbyist was there, but claimed he didn't say so because no one asked.
www.realchange.org...


Mitt Romney's Skeleton Closet: Scandals, Quotes, and Character

Mitt Romney was born rich -- his dad was the the CEO of American Motors, and later governor of Michigan -- but Mitt got much richer by practicing predatory capitalism at Bain & Co.-- taking over companies by borrowing against their own assets, stripping them of resources, firing workers, busting unions and getting rid of workers' pensions. Meanwhile, he himself gets a multimillion dollar annual pension from Bain, which he pays minimal taxes on due to tax shelters and hiding his money in shady, foreign tax havens (such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and Swiss bank accounts) that have extreme secrecy.
www.realchange.org...


www.realchange.org...

edit on 26-1-2012 by gortex because: Edit to add



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Option C:

RON PAUL



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I'm a Democrat so perhaps my opinion is not wanted here.

But, I think that Newt is less electable than Mitt.

However, I do think that Newt could tear Obama up in a debate. If Newt were the nominee, I doubt that Obama would debate him.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by BagOfDrewshness
 


*sigh*

The reason RP has been 'excluded' from this thread is because this website is overwhelmingly pro-RP. Such a thread would only serve to confirm what we already know, which is RP is the overwhelmingly popular choice here.

If I went on a pro-Newt forum and posted the question "If you hade to vote for Mitt or Paul (no Newt supporters), you would all be the first to criticise the closemindedness of people replying "Newt all the way" or "lool...Newt is the obvious choice"

It's a real shame that RP supporters feel the need to sully his name by hijacking this thread to antagonise readers who actually wanted to see who is more popular, on ATS (Newt or Mitt).



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Newt is already talking about seven, three – hour long Lincoln – Douglas style debates with the President. He even said Mr. Obama could use his teleprompter so as to not make it too difficult on the poor fella. I do not like Newt Gingrich but will admit one thing; he can debate circles around anyone.





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join