• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who would you vote for in a republican primary?

There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.

[h=1]“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”[/h]
Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance
 
There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.

Often, that's the necessity in party politics. It's going to be the continued norm for quite some time. It's not scummy when the American public demands it that way. If it remains scummy, then the American public are filled with scum. Even if you want to go that far, I would still advocate for a politician to do it if it is necessary to win.
 
Often, that's the necessity in party politics. It's going to be the continued norm for quite some time. It's not scummy when the American public demands it that way.

Popular opinion doesn't change the act of scummy behavior. Furthermore, many people voted against Romney for such behavior. I don't disagree that it's a necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still scummy. When you abandon all that you are to temporary adopt someone else's opinions and then abandon them to get centrist votes.....that's not a sign of a principled leader.

If it remains scummy, then the American public are filled with scum. Even if you want to go that far, I would still advocate for a politician to do it if it is necessary to win.

Look at this site. Do you think we aren't filled with scum?
 
Popular opinion doesn't change the act of scummy behavior. Furthermore, many people voted against Romney for such behavior. I don't disagree that it's a necessity, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still scummy. When you abandon all that you are to temporary adopt someone else's opinions and then abandon them to get centrist votes.....that's not a sign of a principled leader.

Too much idealism. If it is reality and a necessity, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing. Embrace it. Either that or proudly don't vote for the main parties. Stick to your principles and vote for an irrelevant third party. I personally have little patience for the idea that we need that level of principled leaders when everyone in the room seemingly agrees with your sentiment yet simultaneously agrees that woe unto those who actually follow through with it if they remain principled about something you disagree with. If the American public doesn't actually want that level of principled behavior during campaign season, then we shouldn't give it to them.
 
Last edited:
The Washington Post reported:

Cuts currently planned to the U.S. Army may pose problems as it takes a leading role in security crises emerging around the world, including the fight against the Islamic State militant group and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, said the service’s top officer.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, said he is “starting to worry about our end strength,” a reference to the number of soldiers in the service. The Pentagon said in February that it would cut the Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops, its smallest size since before World War II. But “the world is changing in front of us” since those statements were made, Odierno said.


Top general: U.S. needs to rethink how much it cuts the Army - The Washington Post

These concerns are expressed in the context of the current fiscal path. As noted previously, Senator Paul's budget proposal called for slashing military spending approximately 19% from current levels.
 
There's a difference between pivoting and complete belief abandonment. Romney went from tooting his horn on the insurance program that was the foundation of the ACA to saying the ACA was a total mess. Romney turned his back on everything he used to believe just to get the GOP nomination, then he forsook those beliefs to move to the center. A lot of people saw that as completely scummy. And it was.

The people if mass wanted the hc, the people of the us did not
 
The Washington Post reported:

Cuts currently planned to the U.S. Army may pose problems as it takes a leading role in security crises emerging around the world, including the fight against the Islamic State militant group and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa, said the service’s top officer.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, chief of staff of the Army, said he is “starting to worry about our end strength,” a reference to the number of soldiers in the service. The Pentagon said in February that it would cut the Army to between 440,000 and 450,000 troops, its smallest size since before World War II. But “the world is changing in front of us” since those statements were made, Odierno said.


Top general: U.S. needs to rethink how much it cuts the Army - The Washington Post

These concerns are expressed in the context of the current fiscal path. As noted previously, Senator Paul's budget proposal called for slashing military spending approximately 19% from current levels.

One article or any article does not conclusively determine if the dod should be reduced
 
One article or any article does not conclusively determine if the dod should be reduced

The security environment drives the requirements for the nation's security posture. Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony in the Mideast (which, in turn, is one factor behind its drive for a possible nuclear weapons capability), the balance of power vis-a-vis Europe and Russia where strategic interests are divergent, China's rise as a great power and possible (but not assured) superpower, myriad extreme Islamist movements with universalist aspirations, state decay or failure in areas where important U.S. interests are involved, etc., are just some of the factors involved. The security environment is anything but tranquil. At the same time, in the absence of the bipolar Cold War struggle, the situation is highly complex. Existing or traditional relationships may or may not be sustained over the longer-term in this environment. Not surprisingly, even reliable American allies such as Japan are looking for better understanding of American intentions as part of evaluating the shifting balance of forces and other trends that are shaping their regional environment. There is no great clamor for American retrenchment in which it slashes its defense budget, retreats from its strategic overseas commitments, and abdicates foreign policy participation on a large-scale basis. Arguments for dramatic cuts in Defense spending and foreign aid are largely fiscal in nature. They are not driven by environmental or strategic requirements.
 
I pretty much agree but I like Ted Crruz a lot to. Like you I would vote for any Conservative candidate and I think that any of the three can defeat "The wicked witch from the east, Hillary .


This prediction ensures a Hilary win. NP said the same thing about the lot of "great candidates" for the GOP in the last two elections....where he proclaimed Fred Thompson the savior of the Republican party, assured everyone that McCain and Romney were going to "trounce" Obama in the election. Anyone else out there wondering who the "great" candidates are among the current sorry lot of front runners for the once strong and proud GOP?
 
The security environment drives the requirements for the nation's security posture. Iran's pursuit of regional hegemony in the Mideast (which, in turn, is one factor behind its drive for a possible nuclear weapons capability), the balance of power vis-a-vis Europe and Russia where strategic interests are divergent, China's rise as a great power and possible (but not assured) superpower, myriad extreme Islamist movements with universalist aspirations, state decay or failure in areas where important U.S. interests are involved, etc., are just some of the factors involved. The security environment is anything but tranquil. At the same time, in the absence of the bipolar Cold War struggle, the situation is highly complex. Existing or traditional relationships may or may not be sustained over the longer-term in this environment. Not surprisingly, even reliable American allies such as Japan are looking for better understanding of American intentions as part of evaluating the shifting balance of forces and other trends that are shaping their regional environment. There is no great clamor for American retrenchment in which it slashes its defense budget, retreats from its strategic overseas commitments, and abdicates foreign policy participation on a large-scale basis. Arguments for dramatic cuts in Defense spending and foreign aid are largely fiscal in nature. They are not driven by environmental or strategic requirements.

You can bring in any and every threat out there, why not raise taxes 50 pct to provide for more defense spending. Afterall, its the security environment and what not.
 
This prediction ensures a Hilary win. NP said the same thing about the lot of "great candidates" for the GOP in the last two elections....where he proclaimed Fred Thompson the savior of the Republican party, assured everyone that McCain and Romney were going to "trounce" Obama in the election. Anyone else out there wondering who the "great" candidates are among the current sorry lot of front runners for the once strong and proud GOP?

Whats it to you? Are you a troll or do you intend on voting in a republican primary.

Anyone the libs say "guarantees a win for dems". Is probably a good candidate
 
Whats it to you? Are you a troll or do you intend on voting in a republican primary.

Anyone the libs say "guarantees a win for dems". Is probably a good candidate

You have to know Navy Pride's history. When he says something is definitely going to happen....almost the exact opposite always occurs.
 
You can bring in any and every threat out there, why not raise taxes 50 pct to provide for more defense spending. Afterall, its the security environment and what not.

One doesn't need a 50% tax hike to adopt a defense budget that is consistent with the security environment that confronts the nation. Smarter and more realistic budget allocations, in other words allocations more in line with national priorities (domestic and foreign policy), along with improved efficiency could probably go a long way toward financing sustainable and adequate defense expenditures.
 
Last edited:
Obama has been encouraging the dysfunctional Congress. Romney would want to work with both parties. Obama and Reid have been ignoring almost everything coming from the Republican side of the aisle and that has not been helpful to the country.

Not really. If the House actually wanted to get something done rather than just throw up meaningless legislation, has they have been, they would pass pre-negotiated bills. You would recognize a pre-negotiated bill as one that had bi-partisan support (20-40 dems voting with it and 20 or so very conservative members voting against it). Instead, they are passing legislation which appeals only to the right and extreme right side of the party. Such legislation is going to be DOA in the Senate, because it has NO middle of the road (and slightly left of center) appeal. Its not serious legislation.

The reason Reid doesn't take this stuff up is its not serious (like trying to repeal Obamacare 50+ times... that isn't serious).... serious legislation would have constructively amended Obamacare, with an eye toward making it work correctly.
 
Here's what The Washington Post wrote about the impact of defense cuts in an editorial on the topic:

Since 2010, defense spending has been slashed 21 percent in real terms, according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments , which also produced last week’s war cost study. The Army has announced plans to reduce its size to the lowest level since before World War II, while the Navy is on its way to the smallest number of ships in a century...

The undeniable reality, as a bipartisan commission created by Congress recently concluded, is that the 2011 budget plan was a “serious strategic misstep” that has hamstrung the Pentagon’s ability to respond to the multiple international crises of this year.


Paying for wars against the Islamic State, Ebola and more - The Washington Post

The newspaper went on to urge restored funding. In a world in which one assumes that American power makes a positive contribution to stability and in which the U.S. has many far-flung interests and strategic allies, by a situation in which the Army would be at its smallest level since before World War II and the Navy would have the fewest ships in a century.

President Reagan was fond of arguing for "peace through strength." He wasn't articulating a doctrine of crusading military intervention. Instead, he was arguing that strength was a necessary component of deterrence. If successful, deterrence would reduce the number of conflicts in which the U.S. would have to get involved. Without strength, deterrence would fail.

IMO, the conservatism of President Reagan was premised in a sound understanding of history and the world. The Paul variant, which would reduce the military well beyond the figures cited in The Washington Post's editorial is something quite different that is based on idealistic assumptions of a peaceful world and dependence on others' good will.
 
Lots of good candidates in 2016

Jeb Bush
Rand Paul
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
Ted Cruz
Ben Carson
Scott Brown


At this point i am leaning Paul or Carson

I like the idea of a president that has done something other than politics. I also share many of the same positions of paul and carson. Not all, but i dont miss the forest for the trees. I would support any of the above candidates tho if they won the primary.

What say you

I don't think Carson is ready yet--he has no government or management experience at all and even the greatest point of view and best attitude won't get things done if you don't know how to get things done. But he would make somebody a great Vice President that would give him good training/experience. Of the group on the poll list, Jeb or Mitt are both the best qualified and Mitt would not come with the baggage of the Bush legacy. I didn't mark a poll option yet though. Will have to think about it.

If I had to name my dream team right now at this minute, it would be Trey Gowdy Pres & Ben Carson Veep.
 
I don't think Carson is ready yet--he has no government or management experience at all and even the greatest point of view and best attitude won't get things done if you don't know how to get things done. But he would make somebody a great Vice President that would give him good training/experience. Of the group on the poll list, Jeb or Mitt are both the best qualified and Mitt would not come with the baggage of the Bush legacy. I didn't mark a poll option yet though. Will have to think about it.

If I had to name my dream team right now at this minute, it would be Trey Gowdy Pres & Ben Carson Veep.

I agree. That is a dream team. Sign 'em up. I'll make sure I vote in the GOP primary.
 
I don't think Carson is ready yet--he has no government or management experience at all and even the greatest point of view and best attitude won't get things done if you don't know how to get things done.

This is why I don't believe he should be on the ticket. If something were to happen to the President, he would still not be prepared. A senior-level (Cabinet or sub-Cabinet) position, probably in a health-related area given his field of expertise, might be a good way for Carson to begin to develop management/leadership experience in public service.
 
This is why I don't believe he should be on the ticket. If something were to happen to the President, he would still not be prepared. A senior-level (Cabinet or sub-Cabinet) position, probably in a health-related area given his field of expertise, might be a good way for Carson to begin to develop management/leadership experience in public service.

At this point I would take the chance. I am so sick of the permanent political class that exists only to increase its own personal power, prestige, influence, and fortune that I will risk putting in somebody with less than optimal experience just to get somebody with the right values. Trey Gowdy hasn't been in Congress long enough to be ruined yet and he would recruit an excellent team to serve that Carson would inherit and that would see him through if he should have to take over.
 
Not really. If the House actually wanted to get something done rather than just throw up meaningless legislation, has they have been, they would pass pre-negotiated bills. You would recognize a pre-negotiated bill as one that had bi-partisan support (20-40 dems voting with it and 20 or so very conservative members voting against it). Instead, they are passing legislation which appeals only to the right and extreme right side of the party. Such legislation is going to be DOA in the Senate, because it has NO middle of the road (and slightly left of center) appeal. Its not serious legislation.

The reason Reid doesn't take this stuff up is its not serious (like trying to repeal Obamacare 50+ times... that isn't serious).... serious legislation would have constructively amended Obamacare, with an eye toward making it work correctly.

That is incorrect. Besides, the Senate is not even trying to discuss/negotiate/modify any bills, the are just sitting dormant. There is a big huge close-minded road block to most all bills: Harry Reid.

Here is one list of the 387 Bills. There is info on the votes on most of them as well.
Bill Tracker
 
In foreign affairs Rand Paul is an irresponsible loon, and a know-nothing. If he were the Repub nominee I would support Hillary Clinton.

Thank you for demonstrating how your desire to bomb other countries into oblivion is stronger than your desire for liberty at home.
 
That is incorrect. Besides, the Senate is not even trying to discuss/negotiate/modify any bills, the are just sitting dormant. There is a big huge close-minded road block to most all bills: Harry Reid.

Here is one list of the 387 Bills. There is info on the votes on most of them as well.
Bill Tracker

Show me the bills that have bi-partisan support in the house (at least 30 Dem votes and many Conservative No votes) and you will move your point forward. The bills that are passed substantially along party lines that are sitting dormant in the Senate are not serious bills. If they were serious, you would see crossover vote in the house. In any serious business transaction, you put forth a reasonable offer that you know will be taken seriously because you have addressed the constituency you are presenting it to. If you can even get cross-over vote in the house, why do you think the Senate should take it seriously? Answer: they don't, which is why they sit on the sidelines, as they should. Negotiations only happen with a serious first offer; a serious first offer has 30+ democrats voting in favor

Though I agree some bills (a handful) meet this criteria, most do not and are not serious pieces of legislation. They are just showboat to the House can do what its doing and say "look here, we did our job"...... Serious minds, however, are more discriminating and see this for the farce it is.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/03/bogus-bipartisan-claims/
 
Last edited:
This is why I don't believe he should be on the ticket. If something were to happen to the President, he would still not be prepared. A senior-level (Cabinet or sub-Cabinet) position, probably in a health-related area given his field of expertise, might be a good way for Carson to begin to develop management/leadership experience in public service.

If that, really. I think he needs possibly an even lower position to start with.
 
Back
Top Bottom