• 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!

Santorum Nomination Guarantees an Obama Re-election

A Santorum Nomination Guarantees an Obama Re-election

  • Total voters
    37
obvious Child said:
Agree? Disagree?
Click to expand...

If Rick Santorum is actually a contrast to Obama then I would disagree. Romney and Gingrich on the other hand would most definitely secure Obama's 2nd term. Romney is just a liberal pretending to be a conservative and no self respecting conservative would ever vote for a liberal.Even though almost every politician is ****en rich and been in office for a long time,the green with envy crowd will portray Romney as some rich guy who is out of touch with the common man. Romney has flipped so much that the joke "a liberal,conservative and a moderate walk into a bar and the bartender says hello Mitt" holds truth. Gingrich is the epitome of scumbag politicians and he supports amnesty for illegals.
 
Amigo said:
Mitch Daniels, Allen West, or Rand Paul. ;)
Click to expand...

Rand Paul would cost the ticket votes. Daniels might swing Indiana back into the GOP column but not much more than that.

Rubio is still the best and most valuable addition.
 
Amigo said:
Again, I know many moderates who would support ONLY him over Obama, because he is for liberty, and Obama is for Tyranny.

It's quite simple who people will pick. ;)
Click to expand...

With his social views I would hardly call him a candidate for liberty.
 
Ive paid attention to every Presidential election since 1992, and I've never seen anything as pathetic as this one. Its like the Republicans are just begging Obama to win.
 
Thunder said:
Ive paid attention to every Presidential election since 1992, and I've never seen anything as pathetic as this one. Its like the Republicans are just begging Obama to win.
Click to expand...

John Kerry was pretty damn pathetic.
 
The conservatives can run Reagan again; this time around, he'd be lucky to win three states, doing even worse than Goldwater back in '64 ...
 
Your Star said:
With his social views I would hardly call him a candidate for liberty.
Click to expand...
oh brother and what do you have to back that up? Last time I checked, unlike Obama he doesnt have any really radical views
 
earthworm said:
The conservatives can run Reagan again; this time around, he'd be lucky to win three states, doing even worse than Goldwater back in '64 ...
Click to expand...
I doubt it, I would vote for his dead body over Obama.... But then I would vote for a can of tuna if it ran against him
 
Who voted "who is santorum?"
 
nathanjames1791 said:
oh brother and what do you have to back that up? Last time I checked, unlike Obama he doesnt have any really radical views
Click to expand...

Anti-SSM, anti-abortion rights, anti-contraceptions, he would use the government to enforce his social views.

And Obama and radical should not be used in the same sentence, he has been a pragmatist barely left of center politician, at least as POTUS.
 
Amigo said:
For you, libert is Welfare and Abortion. ;) :roll:
Click to expand...

It would be nice if you argued what I said, and not argue what you think I believe.
 
Your Star said:
Anti-SSM, anti-abortion rights, anti-contraceptions, he would use the government to enforce his social views.

And Obama and radical should not be used in the same sentence, he has been a pragmatist barely left of center politician, at least as POTUS.
Click to expand...

I know liberals and Democrats characterize some of his views as you have listed here bat**** crazy but I think you would be suprised how ambivalent a lot of people are about those issues. To some he can be as Anti-SSM, contraceptive or abortion as he wants because it really is not going to change anything on those issues. Those aren't deal breakers for a lot of people who are personally not as extreme as he. The country as a whole and Congress in particular won't go along with much if any rollbacks on those kinds of rights.
 
Last edited:
Your Star said:
Anti-SSM, anti-abortion rights, anti-contraceptions, he would use the government to enforce his social views.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this imformation about contraception? :roll: If Obama get elected again, you will pay. ;)
 
Amigo said:
I think that something big and bad will happen in the Middle East, that it will hurt Obama's chances a lot. So no, I see it helping Santorum a big deal, because of his knowledge about the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Conservative and knowledge do not go "hand in hand"..Or should I say "sensitivity", another conservative weakness...
Too bad for the "GOP" that their best candidate , Mr Huntsman, had so little support...We does possess knowledge and is a Republican.
 
Amigo said:
Where do you get this imformation about contraception? :roll: If Obama get elected again, you will pay. ;)
Click to expand...


Candidates often say things when polling in the single digits that come back to haunt them when they ​
start leading
the polls. Last October, Rick Santorum ​
gave an interview
with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President. In particular, he said he would “get rid of any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage” as a government policy. Start watching the following video at 17:55.

Read more: Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ | Swampland | TIME.com​
 
Your Star said:
And I think he's stupid enough to do that.
Click to expand...
His handlers will advise him to be careful, to attack President Obama on his weaknesses...
But, I'd place Rick on a Barry G. level and, IMO, Obama is far better than Johnson.
 
winston53660 said:
Candidates often say things when polling in the single digits that come back to haunt them when they ​
start leading
the polls. Last October, Rick Santorum ​
gave an interview
with an Evangelical blog called Caffeinated Thoughts, in which he said contraception is “not okay,” and that this would be a public policy issue he would tackle as President. In particular, he said he would “get rid of any idea that you have to have abortion coverage or contraceptive coverage” as a government policy. Start watching the following video at 17:55.

Read more: Rick Santorum Wants to Fight ‘The Dangers Of Contraception’ | Swampland | TIME.com​
Click to expand...

He's talking about govt policy's that would pay for contraceptives federally. ;) Try again.
 
earthworm said:
His handlers will advise him to be careful, to attack President Obama on his weaknesses...
But, I'd place Rick on a Barry G. level and, IMO, Obama is far better than Johnson.
Click to expand...

The reason why Goldwalter lost is because conservatism was new to the american people. ;)
 
Amigo said:
The reason why Goldwalter lost is because conservatism was new to the american people. ;)
Click to expand...

So no conservatives were elected before Goldwater ran? I hardly think your statement is true.

BG lost for many reasons but the "new conservatism' is hardly one of them.
 
haymarket said:
So no conservatives were elected before Goldwater ran? I hardly think your statement is true.

BG lost for many reasons but the "new conservatism' is hardly one of them.
Click to expand...

The idea of small government wasn't mentioned since the 1920s when Cooledge was president.
 
Amigo said:
The idea of small government wasn't mentioned since the 1920s when Cooledge was president.
Click to expand...

The "small government" meme is not a new one. It did fade during the Depression and WW2 - for good reason. But it was not something just invented in recent years. The people who believed in it did not all die or go away without replacement of others who felt the same way. Goldwater lost simply because over 60% of the nation simply disagreed with him and his ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom