• 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.

Republicans: 5 Days To Go Till Iowa, Who Are You Supporting and Why?

Who Do You Support?


  • Total voters
    28
  • Poll closed .
Why in the hell would you get an apology? Liars are the ones that give apologies, they don’t receive them.

You clearly states in the outset that you don’t support Paul, which is fine, so stop trying to claim otherwise.

So there's not a candidate out there that you don't support who holds even a single view you agree with?
 
You don't think that there's a 3rd option? That Ron Paul's beliefs take much of what Grim17 does believe in but takes them to such an extreme that they're nutty? Or a 4th option, that ALL his views aren't reasons why Grim is stating he's nutty but rather only some of his views or actions may be what makes him viewed as "nutty"?

WTF??

Exactly what in the hell did I do to deserve this ****?
 
So there's not a candidate out there that you don't support who holds even a single view you agree with?

of course. I don't refer to those candidates as nuts though.
 
WTF??

Exactly what in the hell did I do to deserve this ****?

you created a poll, while also poisoning the well. you except me to make nice when you pull that crap? F U
 
Last edited:
Why in the hell would you get an apology? Liars are the ones that give apologies, they don’t receive them.

You clearly states in the outset that you don’t support Paul, which is fine, so stop trying to claim otherwise.

Show me the lie.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I never claimed to support Paul, nor did I ever say that I don't agree with Paul's political beliefs... All I said was that Paul is a nut and panders to racists... Both of which I believe to be true.

Now why don't you knock off the attacks.
 
you created a poll, while also poisoning the well.

By what? Stating his opinion about the topic question he asked about? Hell, the website ENCOURAGES people to do that. Its more preferable than just putting up poll questions and not giving anything beyond that. What, he's "poisoning the well" because he doesn't have a positive view of Paul? I don't see you caring that he "poised the well" by stating his opinion on any other candidate.
 
Show me the lie.

IT DOESN'T EXIST.

I never claimed to support Paul, nor did I ever say that I don't agree with Paul's political beliefs... All I said was that Paul is a nut and panders to racists... Both of which I believe to be true.

haha. yes, you only said he was insane and a racist. how could I of ever taken that as an indication you don't support him.

Now why don't you knock off the attacks.

report me, otherwise shut the **** up
 
haha. yes, you only said he was insane and a racist. how could I of ever taken that as an indication you don't support him.



report me, otherwise shut the **** up

You are truly the perfect representitive of the Ron Paul crowd.
 
@Zyphlin
We were founded as a christian nation. Our Founding Fathers would be greatly troubled by Abortion in all cases.

The words in our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
 
Last edited:
@Zyphlin
We were founded as a christian nation. Our Founding Fathers would be greatly troubled by Abortion in all cases.

Indeed, at the same time rather than actually make us a Christian STATE they specifically made it so that the state couldn't establish a religion. Rather than placing the Bible as the over arching guidelines of our country, they placed the Constitution.

Many founders had issues with the notion of giving women and blacks the vote as well...but they gave us a a means to implement things even they found troubling. The constitution.

Santorum's morals don't override that regardless of the issue.

Also, I find it funny you jumped on abortion when I never stated one word about it.
 
Well, I was hoping it wouldn't end up like this, but I'm supporting Romney.


Paul is a nut, Gingrich is a loose cannon, Bachmann doesn't have what it takes, Perry is a joke, Huntsman is a wannabe, and Santorum just doesn't have the support or name recognition to win the nomination... So by default, I'm stuck supporting Mitt Romney.

His track record for being less than conservative is troubling, but unfortunatly he's the best chance republicans have against Obama come November... And lets face it, getting Obama the hell out of the White House is job #1.

I thought that the economy, healthcare, education and the betterment of the American citizen was job #1. But I suppose, to some, that's a white man's job, right?
 
I thought that the economy, healthcare, education and the betterment of the American citizen was job #1. But I suppose, to some, that's a white man's job, right?

Wow...that tells us something about you and your ability to actually make an argument when the first thing you jump to is racism with literally zero evidence of it. GOD FORBID someone actually...I don't know...disagree with how Obama dealt with the economy, health care, education, and his view of what the "betterment of the American Citizen" was.

Good Gosh, no way rednecks like us consurvatives be able to think up somethin that difficult, no sir...we all know we're all just racists that hate dem black people!

:roll:

For ****s sakes.
 
Well, I was hoping it wouldn't end up like this, but I'm supporting Romney.


Paul is a nut, Gingrich is a loose cannon, Bachmann doesn't have what it takes, Perry is a joke, Huntsman is a wannabe, and Santorum just doesn't have the support or name recognition to win the nomination... So by default, I'm stuck supporting Mitt Romney.

His track record for being less than conservative is troubling, but unfortunatly he's the best chance republicans have against Obama come November... And lets face it, getting Obama the hell out of the White House is job #1.

So as a man of principles, which you claim to be, you throw them away and back the candidate who you openly admit to not liking yet you think has the best chance to win.

I think that speaks for itself.
 
I thought that the economy, healthcare, education and the betterment of the American citizen was job #1. But I suppose, to some, that's a white man's job, right?

Is there a reason why a disproportionate amount of foolish comments on this website are put forward by those with a comic book or manga avatar, or am I just seeing things?
 
Now, to answer the question at hand.

I have no qualms with supporting Romney. I will be voting for the "establishment" Republicans: Romney, Gingrich, but less solid with Gingrich. I'm not much into the anti-Washington sentiment, and would prefer people that seem either "electable" or with solid connections with the powers that be. If it meant Gingrich to be the VP, I would be fine with that as well, as I would prefer a solid VP that can use his connections and know-how to push an agenda through. I also would not be opposed to throwing out my faith to Huntsman, but I do believe he is not going anywhere.
 
Indeed, at the same time rather than actually make us a Christian STATE they specifically made it so that the state couldn't establish a religion. Rather than placing the Bible as the over arching guidelines of our country, they placed the Constitution.

Many founders had issues with the notion of giving women and blacks the vote as well...but they gave us a a means to implement things even they found troubling. The constitution.

Santorum's morals don't override that regardless of the issue.

Also, I find it funny you jumped on abortion when I never stated one word about it.

But Christianity isn't a religion.

To fact check:

Women could vote under the Founding, and also, there were black Founding Fathers.

Anyway, I mentioned Abortion because ending it will help the USA, and that's what Santorum is calling for. :)
 
Seems to speak that he's a pragmatic realist. Not something inherently worse than being principled and idealistic.

I suppose not, but I thought you were the principled idealist? Weren't we having that conversation about Christine O'Donnell? And how I was saying you shouldn't vote for her because she had no chance to when, so it wasn't the pragmatic solution. And then you said but she's closest with your political views, and it didn't matter if she wouldn't win. So I've reversed my argument just to take a jab at Grim...

I may have just put my foot in my own mouth.
 
Is there a reason why a disproportionate amount of foolish comments on this website are put forward by those with a comic book or manga avatar, or am I just seeing things?

People with sports-related avatars are generally less foolish. Proven fact.
 
But Christianity isn't a religion.

Oh? What is it?

To fact check:

Women could vote under the Founding

Women had the right to vote prior to the 19th amendment? Or did they have the privledge to do so, IF the state they lived in deemed to give them the ability? Documentation for verification of this statement?

and also, there were black Founding Fathers.

And that negates that many founders didn't want to give black people a vote how? Also, was there a person who signed the DOI or the Constitution that was black that I'm simply not aware of? Please, provide his name, I'm extremely curious

Anyway, I mentioned Abortion because ending it will help the USA, and that's what Santorum is calling for. :)

His stance on individual issues, and my agreement or disagreement with them, is irrelevant to me in relationship to his more broader view that if he feels that his morals are the more important determining factor for what the President should do rather than what the Constitution says.
 
I suppose not, but I thought you were the principled idealist?

Me personally, I'm a principled voter when it comes to the primary. However, when it comes to the general, I'm kind of a principled pragmatist. What I mean by that is that my desire for principles is also balanced by the pragmatic understanding that one of the two major parties is likely to win. So, if there's ENOUGH there in the candidate whose nominated to make me believe that enough of my principles will be represented and enough things that goes against my principles won't be done, I'm more likely to vote for that person then I would a third party.

However, I tend to rate pragmatism as a very important trait in a candidate even if I don't exhibit it myself largely during the primaries. The lack of realism and pragmatism...or at least the lack of an ability to account for those things...is one of my large issues with Ron Paul.

Weren't we having that conversation about Christine O'Donnell? And how I was saying you shouldn't vote for her because she had no chance to when, so it wasn't the pragmatic solution.

Actually, while I wasn't an O'Donnell fan I can't really blame people for voting for her in the primary. I don't really fault those that voted for the other guy either if they were looking for the pragmatic approach.

While I'm not a huge fan of all out pragmatic voting, as I think if we never vote on principle we're always going to get these "Lesser evils", I don't really begrudge people that do it. My issue is with pragamatic voters who try to demonize and criticize those that do it based on principle, and vise versa. Both methods are legitimate and simply represent HOW one views their vote and what portion of that vote is the important part (The immediate result or the message).

And then you said but she's closest with your political views, and it didn't matter if she wouldn't win

Yep, I'm a principled voter in the primaries most of the time...which is why I had no issue with those going for O'Donnell instead of the other guy. However, those who wanted the other guy...I'm fine with that even if I disagree with them.
 
Nominating Ron Paul puts Obama back in the White House. Maybe you think that's better than a Romney Presidency, but I don't.

So I should vote for someone I do not support, someone who I feel is dishonest, supports government expansions, who caters to lobbyist all so that someone else that does the same does not get my support? This is the very thinking that has lead us to where we are today. The whole mindset of "I will vote for who can win instead of who I think would make the best (whatever)" limits us to sub-par candidates who wish to continue the status quo.

Imagine if people would stop voting for the most likely to win least evil candidate and instead voted for who they actually feel would make a good president the "underdog/no chance of winning" might be a real contender. Until that happens expect more of what we have been having and when you get it don't complain to me about it.
 
Back
Top Bottom