• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Repulican/Conservative Posters Only Poll

Who Will YOU Vote for in the primaries?

  • Total voters
    42
  • Poll closed .
GreenvilleGrows said:
I am in complete agreement with the above. I voted for Fred Thompson in the last primary even though he had small chance of winning. And, I voted for McCain in the election. I'll happily vote for Newt in this one - he's been a favorite of mine for over 15 years. He's been a great conservative leader in the past and can be one again.

When the election comes around, I'll probably just vote against Obama - but, I may vote 3rd party if Romney is the GOP candidate. He'd probably do better than Obama as President, but in the long run, he'll hurt us.

Newt has the potential to be great - I'm surprised that he's not more popular with independents or those that just vote against the religious right.
Click to expand...

Does Gingrich's ethical issues bother you?
 
Redress said:
Is it possible? Yes. AM I going to do it? Not since you asked.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to make me cry?

ocd.gif
 
Redress said:
Does Gingrich's ethical issues bother you?
Click to expand...

Is that a joke? He didn't have ethical issues - he had issues with opposition drumming up accusations against him because he was a huge political threat at the time. They beat him down, no doubt. He was unpopular for awhile because of it, no doubt. But, he was able to do most of what he said he'd do before the so-called conservatives distanced themselves and ran for cover. The IRS later said that he'd done nothing wrong - it was all political drama.

What I like about Newt is that he'll typically address the difficult decisions, make a plan, and then take action. He leads and will not back off a difficult situation just because the polls show it as being unpopular. I'm so sick of politician's who won't point out the wrong and then take action against it. They all just want to be popular tomorrow - who cares about 5 years from now or 25?
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
Is that a joke? He didn't have ethical issues - he had issues with opposition drumming up accusations against him because he was a huge political threat at the time. They beat him down, no doubt. He was unpopular for awhile because of it, no doubt. But, he was able to do most of what he said he'd do before the so-called conservatives distanced themselves and ran for cover. The IRS later said that he'd done nothing wrong - it was all political drama.

What I like about Newt is that he'll typically address the difficult decisions, make a plan, and then take action. He leads and will not back off a difficult situation just because the polls show it as being unpopular. I'm so sick of politician's who won't point out the wrong and then take action against it. They all just want to be popular tomorrow - who cares about 5 years from now or 25?
Click to expand...

That is factually incorrect. He was found guilty of an ethical violation by a bipartisan committee, at a time when the house had a majority of republicans.
 
Redress said:
That is factually incorrect. He was found guilty of an ethical violation by a bipartisan committee, at a time when the house had a majority of republicans.
Click to expand...

It was damn near unanimous as well:

Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker
The House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine.

The 395 to 28 vote closes a tumultuous chapter that began Sept. 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones (D-Ga.), then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint against the then-GOP whip. The complaint took on greater significance when the Republicans took control of the House for the first time in four decades, propelling Gingrich into the speaker's chair.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine again. 395 to 28. I don't think we could get a 395 to 28 vote that the sky is blue in Congress these days.
 
poweRob said:
I'm happy to see that the winners thus far from the right in this forum is Paul and Huntsman. If only the rest of this country's right were smart enough to follow suit.
Click to expand...

Of course, if they were really smart, they wouldn't be conservatives at all, right?

As a liberal, you shouldn't be surprised that conservatives aren't attracted to the same candidates and their various qualities as you are. Doesn't make them stupid.

After watching this last debate, all I'm sure of yet is that Ron Paul won't get my vote. I thought all the rest of them did just fine and am definitely taking another look at Huntsman and Romney. But Paul really blew it for me with what he said about Iran.
 
Redress said:
That is factually incorrect. He was found guilty of an ethical violation by a bipartisan committee, at a time when the house had a majority of republicans.
Click to expand...
whysoserious said:
It was damn near unanimous as well:

Washingtonpost.com: House Reprimands, Penalizes Speaker

Emphasis mine.

Emphasis mine again. 395 to 28. I don't think we could get a 395 to 28 vote that the sky is blue in Congress these days.
Click to expand...

They were trying to prove that they would police themselves - everyone who was around then remembers that. The Republicans were taking the high road - they've done it to themselves before and after.

Actually, the violation was one of paperwork. In the midst of a flurry of allegations, some of the paperwork turned into the ethics committee by Newt's group was wrong. Newt said it was wrong, but he'd signed off on it. So, the violation was one of providing false statements to the ethics committee. The investigation never found anything else - the things which were being investigated were not upheld. And, the IRS later said that even the item that Newt's violation related to wasn't in and of itself wrong. Anyone who's ever been involved with a legal issue knows how much paperwork goes through your hands without being read.

I remember this very clearly: Newt said the paperwork made a wrong representation. He never made the same representation in person. He admitted having signed the paperwork, but said obviously hadn't read it. It wasn't like it was a document relating to something - it was a representation to the ethics committee among a lot of other representations. -- Not a smoking gun in and of itself - just a representation about what he believed or did not believe to be true.

In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[/I]" So, while Newt got fined for the misrepresentation to the ethics panel, the ethics panel was actually pursuing a non-issue. He was vindicated in every way except as to his involvement with the committee itself.
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
They were trying to prove that they would police themselves - everyone who was around then remembers that. The Republicans were taking the high road - they've done it to themselves before and after.

Actually, the violation was one of paperwork. In the midst of a flurry of allegations, some of the paperwork turned into the ethics committee by Newt's group was wrong. Newt said it was wrong, but he'd signed off on it. So, the violation was one of providing false statements to the ethics committee. The investigation never found anything else - the things which were being investigated were not upheld. And, the IRS later said that even the item that Newt's violation related to wasn't in and of itself wrong. Anyone who's ever been involved with a legal issue knows how much paperwork goes through your hands without being read.

I remember this very clearly: Newt said the paperwork made a wrong representation. He never made the same representation in person. He admitted having signed the paperwork, but said obviously hadn't read it. It wasn't like it was a document relating to something - it was a representation to the ethics committee among a lot of other representations. -- Not a smoking gun in and of itself - just a representation about what he believed or did not believe to be true.

In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[/I]" So, while Newt got fined for the misrepresentation to the ethics panel, the ethics panel was actually pursuing a non-issue. He was vindicated in every way except as to his involvement with the committee itself.
Click to expand...

You're in denial. Republicans and Democrats slapped ethics violations on Newt -- nearly unanimously -- because he was guilty of the violations. If he wins this primary I'm confident you will see a ****ton of additional that was discovered during the ethics violations but not released for public consumption.

Republicans who served with Newt are among his most vocal critics. There's a reason for that, and it's not because they don't like his haircut.

Since he was drummed out of Congress he's been raking in big bugs running every kind of influence peddling scam imagineable.

Please please please vote for him!
 
GreenvilleGrows said:
They were trying to prove that they would police themselves - everyone who was around then remembers that. The Republicans were taking the high road - they've done it to themselves before and after.

Actually, the violation was one of paperwork. In the midst of a flurry of allegations, some of the paperwork turned into the ethics committee by Newt's group was wrong. Newt said it was wrong, but he'd signed off on it. So, the violation was one of providing false statements to the ethics committee. The investigation never found anything else - the things which were being investigated were not upheld. And, the IRS later said that even the item that Newt's violation related to wasn't in and of itself wrong. Anyone who's ever been involved with a legal issue knows how much paperwork goes through your hands without being read.

I remember this very clearly: Newt said the paperwork made a wrong representation. He never made the same representation in person. He admitted having signed the paperwork, but said obviously hadn't read it. It wasn't like it was a document relating to something - it was a representation to the ethics committee among a lot of other representations. -- Not a smoking gun in and of itself - just a representation about what he believed or did not believe to be true.

In 1999, the IRS cleared the organizations connected with the "Renewing American Civilization" courses under investigation for possible tax violations.[/I]" So, while Newt got fined for the misrepresentation to the ethics panel, the ethics panel was actually pursuing a non-issue. He was vindicated in every way except as to his involvement with the committee itself.
Click to expand...

So your whole argument is that Gingrich said he didn't do it so he didn't. It's a good thing I don't hold liberal politicians to the standard you hold conservative ones. Of course I am sure you would never take the word of a liberal politician accused of corruption...
 
Redress said:
That is factually incorrect. He was found guilty of an ethical violation by a bipartisan committee, at a time when the house had a majority of republicans.
Click to expand...

It is also disconcerting to know his own party was responsible for his overthrow.
 
Beyond the common issues of the day, ie: economy, social changes, defense, etc., one of the most detrimental issues facing our nation is the divisiveness of it's people. Neighbor is turning against neighbor. Big money forces are at work to further the divide. Re: talk show hosts, cable news, etc.

Those who have been around long enough to remember know that this divisive issue has always been around to some degree or another. But they also remember that when it became an off the hook, off the track, full steam ahead styled hatred, with money to made from it, Newt Gengrich was right there driving that train that derailed our national unity. He is the Godfather of divisiveness and the very seed to what is threatening the very fabric of our nation today. He is a charletan.
 
Captain America said:
Beyond the common issues of the day, ie: economy, social changes, defense, etc., one of the most detrimental issues facing our nation is the divisiveness of it's people. Neighbor is turning against neighbor. Big money forces are at work to further the divide. Re: talk show hosts, cable news, etc.

Those who have been around long enough to remember know that this divisive issue has always been around to some degree or another. But they also remember that when it became an off the hook, off the track, full steam ahead styled hatred, with money to made from it, Newt Gengrich was right there driving that train that derailed our national unity. He is the Godfather of divisiveness and the very seed to what is threatening the very fabric of our nation today. He is a charletan.
Click to expand...

Please. American politics has always been nasty and divided.
 
I am going to vote for Ron Paul. I feel the republican party has drifted from it's conservative fundamentals and Dr. Paul is the only candidate that will utilize every mean necessary to shrink the government and cut the deficit. Plus, most of the other candidates have way too sketchy of a history to partake in a national competition with Obama.
 
Can I vote in this one? I'm a registered Republican, but most people would argue I'm not a real conservative.
 
If I could vote, then I would vote for Jon Huntsman.

I agree with his positions, because I am a fiscal conservative, but I believe in global warming and support cap and trade, I am not against gays, and I support universal health care. I also agree with his foreign policy, and I think he is a good candidate to make the GOP more liked again. He seems to be my candidate.

I like Rick Perry's message, especially his message of independent states, and he looked presidental. But he is not in any way qualified, and he is way too dumb. How shall Rick Perry talk to foreign leaders about foreign policy, when he doesn't even know who they are?

I despise Mitt Romney because he is extremely dishonest. I do not believe a word of what he is saying. I also think he is dangerous to the GOP, because he is likely to lose like the rest and that will cause conflict within the Republican Party.

Newt Gingrich is pretty much an ass, but at least he is a conservative unlike Romney. The only reason I would support him is to stop Romney.

I really don't like Ron Paul, or his supporters. I tend to disagree with him, at least on domestic politics, but at least he has been consistent and correct about the 2008 recession. Somehow Ron Paul supporters and Ron Paul tend to piss me off. They also tend to focus on uneccecary small details, for instance that Cain worked for the federal reserve, but ignore how much banks like and donate to Romney. Ron Paul has attacked Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Newt Gingrich extensively. He has never attacked Mitt Romney. Why? Are the second choice of Ron Paul supporters Mitt Romney?

Bachmann is bat**** insane, and I don't like candidates who tries to destroy each other or score easy points. Santorum is prick who only policy is to hate gays. So, Huntsman is the only candidate, but he won't win.

So in the general election I would just sit out or vote for an independant if Huntsman is not nominated. No reason to switch Obama with a terrible candidate we can not trust, and may hurt GOP chances in 2014 and 2016.
 
Last edited:
I can't vote of course, but I wouldn't vote for any of them. If I was a Yank I'd be sitting on my porch with my beer, wishing Pat Buchanan had ran. If I had to choose I suppose Ron Paul is the best, though whether he could win, I'm not sure.
 
Last edited:
Okay. I'm pulling hard for Huntsman, and I registered as a Republican specifically for the purpose of voting for him in the primary. I don't like anyone else in this race, and unless Huntsman wins the primary, I'm only going to vote next year to vote against Obama-- unless the GOP forces me to vote for Obama to vote against an even worse candidate. My folks like Perry a lot, but he is campaigning too heavily on religious bigotry for me to be comfortable with him, and I'm sure as Hell not going to vote for Bachmann or Santorum.

If Romney takes the nomination, I'll vote for him-- he may be Obama-lite, but at least he's only Obama-lite. I'll vote for Gingrich, but I don't think he stands a chance of winning. If Perry takes it, I'll stay home. And if anyone else takes the nomination, I'll just have to grit my teeth and vote for Obama.
 
Redress said:
Questions: Paul would go too far how?

What do you like about Huntsman specifically?
Click to expand...

Paul goes too far in a lot of areas for me. Foreign policy would be one. I do think we need to stop trying to be the world's policeman and non-intervention generally serves our interests, but we can't completely ignore potential threats. Pauls is right that our constant meddling and intervention in the affairs of the Middle East is what made Iran and other nations hostile towards us (if I hear another Republican try to tell me they hate us for our freedoms I'm gonna puke), but he seems to fail to recognize that even if we completely withdrew from the Middle East, Iran would remain hostile to us. They NEED us as an enemy to unify and distract their own people from their own authoritarian and oppressive government. We made Iran into an enemy, but there is no goingback now. Iran is our enemy and we need to deal with them accordingly. Iran cannnot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Paul, while a strong advocate of free trade, opposes trade agreements even though they help break down trade barriers. He says they're not free trade, but managed trade. While that may be true, he fails to acknowledge that they are an improvement over the situation that existed before them.

Domestically, I'm not against the Federal Reserve, I don't think we need to return to the Gold standard, I don't want to repeal anti-trust laws, and I'm not nearly as convinced as Paul is that industries can be trusted to completely self regulate.

As for Huntsman, I like almost everything I've heard and read about him. He's a strong fiscal conservative and reasonably moderate on many social issues (at least by Republican standards). He's for allowing the states to decide on medical marijuana and pro civil union. His thoughts on restructuring the military are spot on. Here's a link that outlines his plans Bring U.S. military in line with new reality - CNN.com

On the economy he's strongly for free market solutions and tax reform. Plus he's come out very strongly on energy independence, an issue I think is VERY important.
 
Redress said:
So your whole argument is that Gingrich said he didn't do it so he didn't. It's a good thing I don't hold liberal politicians to the standard you hold conservative ones. Of course I am sure you would never take the word of a liberal politician accused of corruption...
Click to expand...

Actually, I potentially would give them the benefit of the doubt. Both parties go after each other with just about anything they have, but the Republicans tend to collapse on each other if ethical/moral issues arise much more so than Democrats. I never thought it was useful to go after Bill Clinton for the extra-marital affairs. And, when he looked into the camera and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", I thought "how stupid is this that this is what we've come to". (I understand why they do it, I just don't like it.) However, I was pissed when I found out that he looked right at all of us through the camera and lied to our faces. Yes, he lied to the ethics panel - a similar charge to Newt. The difference to me is that Bill Clinton obviously lied - to me and the panel. Newt had a representation made as part of a long litany of responses which was incorrect. Newt was vindicated by the IRS as having not done anything illegal - the ethics commission got him only for his mistake in their process. Bill Clinton did, in fact, do what the accusers thought he had done and clearly, intentionally, lied to everyone trying to cover it up.

No, I'm not supporting the idea that the President has to be faithful to his wife to be an effective President - for either Bill or Newt. I could make the argument that I'd respect them more as a man, but what I want out of a President can be measured in the success of our country and in my own success in relation thereto.
 
I think my vote has to go with Paul. Being a Libertarian he holds much of our political ideology. I liked Cain a lot, after listening to him for years on the radio I liked his ideas and thoughts he expressed on what needs to be done.

I dont like Romney, a NE Liberal Republican who is nothing more than the Republican version of Obama.
Cant stand Newt, a Washington insider from birth...just dont like this guy at all
Bachmann, good heart and good intentions but nowhere near enough experience in anything.
Perry is just not even under consideration in my eyes...instate tuition rates for illegals?
Huntsman has a lot of great qualities...I would like to see him as Paul's VP choice.

What I do like about Paul is;
He realizes we are not the worlds police and we shouldnt be using our military to act as such.
He has the right idea on the Fed Reserve, they are way out of control and definitely need to be reigned in.
He has the right idea on social issues, if what another person does doesnt directly effect you, leave them be.
He has the right idea on social programs...yes, we need them HOWEVER they are best done at the state level where each state can fix its own issues. The people of Nebraska know whats best for the people in Nebraska better than some stuffed shirt in Washington does, and why should people in Ohio have to pay for people in California.
 
Last edited:
So it's Paul by a landslide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom