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

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


You know...I seem to remember a certain candidate promising all of this change for our country and not keeping most of those promises!!! What makes you think Ron Paul can keep those promises?

In my opinion Ron Paul will be worse than Obama. If it were up to Ron Paul VS Obama I would actually choose Obama. Why? Obama has a good hold on at least the dems in office. Ron Paul does not have a good hold on anybody. Nobody but a handful of people will listen to him in the White House. He will be the greatest divider making Obama look like Reagan!!!! (that's a joke btw) He will be attacked on all sides of the media.

However a ron paul vs obama or a ron paul vs anybody is not what this thread is asking.
edit on 26-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 



You know...I seem to remember a certain candidate promising all of this change for our country and not keeping most of those promises!!! What makes you think Ron Paul can keep those promises?

In my opinion Ron Paul will be worse than Obama. If it were up to Ron Paul VS Obama I would actually choose Obama. Why? Obama has a good hold on at least the dems in office. Ron Paul does not have a good hold on anybody. Nobody but a handful of people will listen to him in the White House. He will be the greatest divider making Obama look like Reagan!!!! (that's a joke btw) He will be attacked on all sides of the media.


Now we know you're trolling, with a response like that. Paul's appeal is much broader than his deniers like to admit. He is the only candidate that represents real change. His foreign policy and stance on the Fed alone make his candidacy 10X worthier than all the others combined.

Let me ask you, what is the difference between Obama, Romney, and Gingrich? If anything, Romney and Gingrich are even more beholden to banks, special interest groups, and lobbyists.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Paul has a 3 decade record which speaks for itself, unlike Newt.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, in my opinion deadlock is an improvement! If Paul does nothing more than stall government for 4 years, the country will benefit from it.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


How am I trolling if I don't like Ron Paul, I would like a Ron Paul supporter to explain this to me please!!!

All politicians are corrupt even your beloved!


If you don't see how bad of a leader ron paul will be for this country you will be surely blind. I just cannot picture Ron Paul as President. Real Change? I have heard that empty promise before, how about practical solutions?? Which is what mitt and newt both have!
edit on 26-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Also, as I said in an earlier post, in my opinion deadlock is an improvement! If Paul does nothing more than stall government for 4 years, the country will benefit from it.


Isn't that what Obama is getting heat for? Stalling? Isn't this what the left blames the teat party for?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


The Left is blaming the Tea Party for the current division in government, but I don't think the Right is blaming Obama. In my opinion Obama made mistakes in compromising with the Right.

For example, the debt ceiling debate, both sides had portions of a great plan. The Republican spending cuts, combined with the left letting the tax loopholes expire, and then the Tea Party touting an addition of a balanced budget amendment. If everyone had stuck to their guns, and we had gotten all 3, then this government would have been standing up with integrity and acting towards a real solution.

Instead, Republicans stomped their feet like babies and walked out of meetings, and Obama eventually caved in to their demands, and they got some of their spending cuts, and he got his debt ceiling increase, and the Super Committee came into existence, and all the politicians touted it as a win, when really it was a big ol sodomy to the American people!

Currently, there is very little integrity in DC, and first and foremost, this is what we need to vote for in a President. He can't do it all alone, but he has the single most power, and he can cause a headache for everyone else, so if we start with a stubborn president, then we can hopefully work down from there.
edit on 26-1-2012 by getreadyalready because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Some of the responses to this Thread are by people that happen to be Misinformed .This is a two man race between Romney and Paul. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot for 500 Delegates worth of States. They are not, and will not be on the Ballot in other States besides just Virginia. They have no grassroots support and virtually "Zero" ground game. They cannot win the Nomination. Do the research and you will see that reality......





posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanti Misfit
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Some of the responses to this Thread are by people that happen to be Misinformed .This is a two man race between Romney and Paul. Santorum and Gingrich are not on the ballot for 500 Delegates worth of States. They are not, and will not be on the Ballot in other States besides just Virginia. They have no grassroots support and virtually "Zero" ground game. They cannot win the Nomination. Do the research and you will see that reality......




Sorry, I tried to find this information myself without success. Do you have a list of which candidates will be on the primary ballots of which states? And how many delegates each could win?



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 





Why would you waste your vote on a non-electable candidate?


Why would I waste my vote on someone I don't want to be my president? This isn't football. I don't move on to the next best team if my team doesn't make it to the Super Bowl.

And in this instance with presidential candidates, there is no next best pick.
edit on 26-1-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen
 


The information is out there. I know I have posted it on my FB wall, but I can't access that from work.

Here is a previous ATS post of mine, but it isn't the source with all the details.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I think Romney has a better chance
at beating Obama then Newt.
Newt has so much baggage it
is disgusting. The libs will eat
newt up with the attacks. Not to mention
pelosi's little secret



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


Yes, but Obama will crush Romney in any debate on Romney care, and on his Bain Capital endeavors.

That is precisely why both Newt and Romney are not going to win in November, and if the GOP is smart, they will endorse someone who can win in November.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I would choose Romney over Gingrich without hesitation. Gingrich may be the better debater, but so what? We don't need a debater in the WH -- we need a problem solver. And Romney is the best problem solver among all the candidates on either side of the fence.

Gingrich is too full of himself. He is capable of coming up with an 'idea' on short notice, but he cannot implement the ideas. Romney understands what business needs in order to thrive and create jobs. He has done the job for most of his life, with great success.

I don't care if Romney is boring. I don't care if he doesn't have that oooo -aaaah appeal that so many people think is necessary. He is a competent, successful businessman and problem solver, and that is what we need right now.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 


Neither can beat Obama in a debate, or at the polls.

Newt's history will bite him. Obama can pull plenty of Newt's own words agreeing with Obama's policies, so Newt cannot criticize the Prez without it backfiring over and over again. Newt is weak on family values because of the situation with his wife, he is a sitting duck for attacks on racism, minorities, etc. He does have a decent immigration solution, but the words of his other Repub counterparts will be used against him.

Romneycare will sink Mitt. He can't debate Obama, because he is too similar to Obama. Obama will twist his 3 years in office to show a ton of successes by doing things Mitt had previously endorsed, but is now criticizing. He will make Mitt look uncommitted, confused, and he will take Mitt to task on Bain Capital, and on Mitt's own success and richness. He will show 100 jobs lost for every one Bain created. He will take all the attacks from the Primary Season and expand on them gruesomely! He doesn't have to play safe like the Republican Nominees, he can go for the jugular.

Either of those guys will get destroyed by Obama.

Paul is the answer.

The 25% supporting Romney will automatically go to any GOP nomination. The extra Tea Partiers and Conservatives supporting Newt will go over to Paul, and all those Paul supporters, and Independents, and Libertarians, and Blue Dog Democrats, and lazy couch potato voters will get excited about something new, and extreme, and interesting, and they will turn out in mass to vote. Paul is the only possible candidate to defeat Obama.

Mark this post in your favorites, and refer to it over the coming political season.
The election in November will be a landslide to Obama, unless the GOP endorses an extreme Conservative like Paul.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 35Foxtrot
You know what I find most interesting about this thread? Not one person said they'd vote for Obama. Plenty said, "If it's between Newt and Mitt [and Obama of course on the other side], I won't vote," or, "I'd write in Ron Paul." Nobody said, "Go Obama!" Not one "Hope," or even a little "Change," or a "Yes, we can!"

I mean, I guess that's understandable but I would have thought a lot more people would (or at least more than zero!) at least defend Obama or chime in with a, "Neither! I'm voting Obama!!"

I don't think it's the sample pool. I've read many posts here from very liberal people. Either they're not reading this thread, are choosing not to post or it's a lot worse for Obama than I thought.
edit on 26/1/12 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)

Mitt; newt or Obama(?):
I'm writing in:
"My Ham sandwich"!

What?

It could win!
At least it couldn't screwthings up any worse than they are now...
edit on 26-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-1-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




Paul has a 3 decade record which speaks for itself, unlike Newt.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, in my opinion deadlock is an improvement! If Paul does nothing more than stall government for 4 years, the country will benefit from it.


I'm not sure what Paul achieved in 30 years?

Stalling the govt for 4 years. Great idea. Our suburbs will resemble Flint, MI. The unemployed will have done things they would not normally do if they cannot get jobs for 4 years. The nation will be a police state.

Stall the government for 4 years? Insane.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Hmmmmm...................
After much careful thought,here's my answer.




posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by mishigas
 



I'm not sure what Paul achieved in 30 years?

Stalling the govt for 4 years. Great idea. Our suburbs will resemble Flint, MI. The unemployed will have done things they would not normally do if they cannot get jobs for 4 years. The nation will be a police state.

Stall the government for 4 years? Insane.


Flint and Detroit look the way the look BECAUSE of government! Over-regulation, rewarding failing business plans, giving preferential treatment to large, cumbersome, failing corporations, making start-ups near impossible, selling out to foreign investors, taxing corporations to the point that they keep their capital sheltered overseas.

Stalling government, or better yet resetting government, would be a vast improvement!

Just think, if we hadn't done the bailouts, things would have gotten very bad in 2008-2010. People would have suffered greatly, became unemployed, and terrible businesses would have failed.......... BUT, then necessity fathers innovation. Unemployed workers would have started BETTER businesses, and employed their unemployed friends. We would just now be on the upslope of a REAL RECOVERY, instead of still clawing at the downslope of an inevitable depression.

The Bailouts helped, but they helped the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons, and they only delayed the suffering of the common worker.

Government is a hindrance to business, nothing else.

And, for the record, I work in government, in a regulatory capacity, and I see it first hand. We occasionally protect the public, but mostly we throw the book at minor violators and and small fries, and we drive them away, but create exemptions for large corporations and totally ignore them, and we shy away from any major offender with high-powered lawyers. We damage the little and the weak and we make it difficult for them to do business, and we create an environment of little competition for the giant corporations or big bank rolls. We don't do it intentionally, it starts with the legislature, and then it rolls down to incompetent government employees that are over-worked and under-trained.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


reply to post by mishigas



Neither can beat Obama in a debate, or at the polls.


Easily done if they do not allow him to control it. Obama's record of incompetence and corruption should be the focus of the debate. Showcase the pathetic state of the economy and what Obama has done to destroy it. Highlight Solyndra and Keystone.


Romneycare will sink Mitt. He can't debate Obama, because he is too similar to Obama. Obama will twist his 3 years in office to show a ton of successes by doing things Mitt had previously endorsed, but is now criticizing. He will make Mitt look uncommitted, confused, and he will take Mitt to task on Bain Capital, and on Mitt's own success and richness. He will show 100 jobs lost for every one Bain created. He will take all the attacks from the Primary Season and expand on them gruesomely! He doesn't have to play safe like the Republican Nominees, he can go for the jugular.


Trying to attack Bain capital will only work with the voters already dedicated to Obama. Any thinking person knows that statements like "He will show 100 jobs lost for every one Bain created" are pure unadulterated bs and easily debunked.

The trick will be to ignore Obama's attacks and to constantly attack attack attack.


Paul is the answer.


Paul is a joke with a very limited demographic of supporters. His base has not grown over the years; it is the same group with additions from idealistic new college kids. He is still only pulling single digits in any meaningful metric. He has no chance whatsoever of becoming the nominee or the potus.

Plus, his foreign policy is the laughingstock of the nation and the globe.



posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Why would I want to vote for more of the same?

Ron Paul is the only candidate that is not in denial about Washington being out of control.

He is also the only one who wants to do anything about it.

This country is screwed unless we make some major changes and Ron Paul is one of very few people talking about making those changes.
edit on 26-1-2012 by IndieA because: addition





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join