• 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!

2016 Republican Primary

REPUBLICANS ONLY PLEASE- YOUR TOP CHOICE FOR 2016 REPUBLICAN NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT

  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 8 10.0%

  • Rand Paul

    Votes: 23 28.8%

  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Mike Huckabee

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Chris Christie

    Votes: 16 20.0%

  • Rick Perry

    Votes: 2 2.5%

  • Rick Santorum

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jon Huntsman

    Votes: 11 13.8%

  • Paul Ryan

    Votes: 4 5.0%

  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 12 15.0%
  • Total voters
    80
Tothian said:
4- Using words like "Electability" or acting like it's important - means you have no real opinions of your own - and no confidence that you'll be able to convince people of the truth. People like you just go with the flow. Is that the sort of mindset you like having?
Click to expand...

This is like saying that words like "Touchdowns" or acting like it's important means you don't really have an offensive game plan in Football.

Getting elected is the inevitable goal of any election; unless one is seeking to our money down the drain in hopes of pushing a message. You want to say that using words like "electability" means you have no opinion of your own? Well, I'd say the same argument could be made for someone who blatantly ignores arguments that don't fit their narrow propaganda fueled view point and simply keeps responding with the same tired stereotypical talking points and views.
 
Paul Ryan will never even get a look from me anymore after what he is attempting to do to veterans. Rand Paul is my pick. I like Huntsman as well but Paul would be the way I go if he runs. Actually, I'll probably write him in anyway lol
 
You don't think all of the hatchet-men in the GOPee are looking at your veteran's pension..
MarineTpartier said:
Paul Ryan will never even get a look from me anymore after what he is attempting to do to veterans. Rand Paul is my pick. I like Huntsman as well but Paul would be the way I go if he runs. Actually, I'll probably write him in anyway lol
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
the congress, is suppose to have slow, deliberated debates on legislation, and that legislation is suppose to be int he interest of the people.... and the interest of the states.
Click to expand...
I could give a RIP about the states' argument..
The "states" have been ****king things up since the civil war..
We don't ride horses anymore..

legislation was never intended to fly through congress without being read....."because people thinks it the right thing to do"
Click to expand...

I would be happy if "ANY" legislation moved through both chambers..
Too bad the House of NO refused bi-cameral conferences this past year .
 
Last edited:
48 people voted.

Rand Paul 29%
Jon Huntsman 18%
Chris Christie 18%
Ted Cruz 10%
Mike Huckabee 2%
Rick Perry 2%
Paul Ryan 2%
Rob Portman 2%

Former Gov. Jon Huntsman was the original frontrunner in this poll, but now Sen. Rand Paul has taken the lead. Huntsman was runner up with NJ Gov. Chris Christie in 3rd before, now Hunstman and Christie are tied with 2nd and 3rd place.
 
NIMBY said:
You mention your love for Reid, but E. Warren grows more powerful each day..



I hear you praise Manchin, yet he co-sponsored Toomey/Manchin, since it sells well in WV..
Since we'll both be skinned alive if we are "common-sense" on guns, I'll move on .
Click to expand...

Warren doesn't bother me, in fact I agree with on all these too big to fail corporations, banks, firms need to be broken up so next time the government doesn't have to bail them out. No business should be that big, if a private firm, company, corporation fails, it fails and let them go bankrupt. Besides, Warren represents Mass and I expect a flaming liberal to represent them. She is a good fit for Mass. But she wouldn't be for Georgia, just like Chambliss or Isakson wouldn't fit into the political climate of MASS.
 
Am I noticing a bit of populism there??
You must have picked that up from your time in Missouri..
Warren's defeat of Brown was a BFD..

Seems every day we're having a GOP "state" legislature going off the reservation..
The federal GOPees still seem to have their gag order .

Perotista said:
Warren doesn't bother me, in fact I agree with on all these too big to fail corporations, banks, firms need to be broken up so next time the government doesn't have to bail them out. No business should be that big, if a private firm, company, corporation fails, it fails and let them go bankrupt. Besides, Warren represents Mass and I expect a flaming liberal to represent them. She is a good fit for Mass. But she wouldn't be for Georgia, just like Chambliss or Isakson wouldn't fit into the political climate of MASS.
Click to expand...
 
ernst barkmann said:
the GOP is not likely only to nominate a libertarian candidate, so i see me supporting no one in 2016.

i will never understand this party of "no" stuff.....the congress is not suppose to yield to the president , on anything he wants.

the congress, is suppose to have slow, deliberated debates on legislation, and that legislation is suppose to be int he interest of the people.... and the interest of the states.

legislation was never intended to fly through congress without being read....."because people thinks it the right thing to do"
Click to expand...

I totally agree. But some people believe once a president is elected, he should get everything he wants. I don't. Congress is suppose to be a co-equal branch of government, the members of congress who happen to be of the president's party aren't suppose to be part of the administration. Congress needs to be a check on the presidents power and keep him on the straight and narrow. Not abet him and promote him into an imperial presidency.
 
NIMBY said:
Am I noticing a bit of populism there??
You must have picked that up from your time in Missouri..
Warren's defeat of Brown was a BFD..

Seems every day we're having a GOP "state" legislature going off the reservation..
The federal GOPees still seem to have their gag order .
Click to expand...

Populism? I don't know, all I do know if someone is a senator they should represent the state they are from first and not their political party whom they happen to be a member of. I can live with that. I expected Warren to beat Brown, to me it wasn't a big deal.
 
You'll fit in just great on Debate Politics with your gun politics..
Your politics on 3rd party candidates, not so much..

Btw, us "normals" on guns are never quite sure when one of you guys will launch Hitler at us .


Tothian said:
Common sense with guns is let everyone have a gun and to try not to restrict it. Remember, Hitler said that the easiest way to conquer a nation is to first disarm it's citizens.

Tothian, Speaketh!: The Dangers of Gun Control
Click to expand...
 
Perotista said:
Populism? I don't know, all I do know if someone is a senator they should represent the state they are from first and not their political party whom they happen to be a member of. I can live with that. I expected Warren to beat Brown, to me it wasn't a big deal.
Click to expand...

When does the good of the Nation become more paramount than a single state??
Surely Senators have gone against their home states based on privy intel..
Not saying that PPACA is privy intel..
What do you make of the hysterical fear the GOP has over ACA ?
 
NIMBY said:
I could give a RIP about the states' argument..
The "states" have been ****king things up since the civil war..
We don't ride horses anymore..



I would be happy if "ANY" legislation moved through both chambers..
Too bad the House of NO refused bi-cameral conferences this past year .
Click to expand...

the less Legislation......... the better
 
Less legislation is Boehner's mantra..
Why do you guys hate him so much??
If your two GOP wings can't get together, who do Dems talk to ?
ernst barkmann said:
the less Legislation......... the better
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
This is Boehner's mantra..
Why do you guys hate him so much??
If your two wings can't get together, who do Dems talk to ?
Click to expand...


we have seen, that when congress no matter which party controls it, ...[government grows]

laws curtail people's behavior,.......... if all congress does is create law on top of law,...then what happens to liberty?......it shrinks, until there is none.
 
You should be happy with this Congress then..They have done as little as any congress, except for the last congress..
Except for the filibusters to keep judicial and executive positions open..
And then fill them when they take over, as we saw with GWB when you guys Obama-nized Clinton .
ernst barkmann said:
we have seen, that when congress no matter which party controls it, ...[government grows]

laws curtail people's behavior,.......... if all congress does is create law on top of law,...then what happens to liberty?......it shrinks, until there is none.
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
So who is happier over CC's "bridge-gate", the DEms or the TEAs??

When I hear former RNC chief Michael Steele defending CC on Matthews,
I know this is a BFD ..
Click to expand...

I don't know enough about it to make a comment, but don't think Hillary doesn't have sufficient baggage for the Republicans to focus on - all candidates have something - it's mostly who has the most upside in the group.
 
clownboy said:
Heh, there's always one guy in the room who doesn't get the joke. Guess this time it's you.
Click to expand...

When a so called joke goes flat it is the teller of the so called joke that needs to examine their delivery if not also the content.
 
NIMBY said:
When does the good of the Nation become more paramount than a single state??
Surely Senators have gone against their home states based on privy intel..
Not saying that PPACA is privy intel..
What do you make of the hysterical fear the GOP has over ACA ?
Click to expand...

historical fear? I do not think that is it. It goes back to private sector vs. public sector. Back to the third tenet conservative tenet of small government. A fear of an over reaching and all powerful central government. I wonder where the GOP stance would have been if instead of destroying the whole old system, the Democrats came up with a VA style system to take care of those uninsured who were too poor to afford it. I think the key words here is too poor to afford it. The CNN truth squad said out of the 30-40 million uninsured, 13 million of them had incomes of $50,000 or more suggesting that they could buy insurance if they desired. Another 14 million were eligible for medicare or medicaid, but hadn't enrolled. This latter number I think is being proven as we see a huge jump now enrolling in medicaid. Perhaps a lot of this later number never knew they were eligible. If so, the ACA has been a good thing to them if they can use medicaid to see a doctor. That is becoming another problem.

We will just have to wait and see what happens over the next 11 months with the ACA, most of everything that has been said about, either for or against has been just theories as to what will happen. Now things are actually starting to happen. Since the web site has been for the most part fixed, the Democrats have started to rebound some, in the Generic congressional poll the Democrats saw and 8 point lead on 1 November vanish and fell two points behind the Republicans a week ago. Today they are now back up by one. President Obama approval rating had dipped to 39% and has now climbed back up to 42%. The only question left, is this a lasting y trend or a bump in the road?
 
I said hysterical fear, not historical fear, though the GOPees have more raw skin in the ACA law going back to when they wrote the damn thing during Reagan's 2nd term .
Perotista said:
historical fear? I do not think that is it. It goes back to private sector vs. public sector. Back to the third tenet conservative tenet of small government. A fear of an over reaching and all powerful central government. I wonder where the GOP stance would have been if instead of destroying the whole old system, the Democrats came up with a VA style system to take care of those uninsured who were too poor to afford it. I think the key words here is too poor to afford it. The CNN truth squad said out of the 30-40 million uninsured, 13 million of them had incomes of $50,000 or more suggesting that they could buy insurance if they desired. Another 14 million were eligible for medicare or medicaid, but hadn't enrolled. This latter number I think is being proven as we see a huge jump now enrolling in medicaid. Perhaps a lot of this later number never knew they were eligible. If so, the ACA has been a good thing to them if they can use medicaid to see a doctor. That is becoming another problem.

We will just have to wait and see what happens over the next 11 months with the ACA, most of everything that has been said about, either for or against has been just theories as to what will happen. Now things are actually starting to happen. Since the web site has been for the most part fixed, the Democrats have started to rebound some, in the Generic congressional poll the Democrats saw and 8 point lead on 1 November vanish and fell two points behind the Republicans a week ago. Today they are now back up by one. President Obama approval rating had dipped to 39% and has now climbed back up to 42%. The only question left, is this a lasting y trend or a bump in the road?
Click to expand...
 
NIMBY said:
I said hysterical fear, not historical fear, though the GOPees have more raw skin in the ACA law going back to when they wrote the damn thing during Reagan's 2nd term .
Click to expand...

The Republicans wrote the ACA? Now I know the Heritage Foundation or another conservative think tank a decade or two ago came up with a plan similar to or had parts of it in their plan. But the vast majority of Republicans said no way to them. Apparently the Democrats liked the Heritage Plan as it seems they adopted quite a lot of it where most Republicans nixed. So that may be your answer, the Republicans didn't like it when the Heritage Foundation came up with it and they still don't. Who knows. But to say Republicans wrote this version of the ACA is asinine, every two year kid knows better.

My question, what I do not understand is why the Democrats instead of borrowing a lot of junk from the Heritage Foundation plan did come up with ideas of their own? This never made sense to me. But that is life.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't know enough about it to make a comment, but don't think Hillary doesn't have sufficient baggage for the Republicans to focus on - all candidates have something - it's mostly who has the most upside in the group.
Click to expand...

We're all about "baggage" in the USA aren't we?
 
NIMBY said:
You should be happy with this Congress then..They have done as little as any congress, except for the last congress..
Except for the filibusters to keep judicial and executive positions open..
And then fill them when they take over, as we saw with GWB when you guys Obama-nized Clinton .
Click to expand...

actually no, the house has passed a lot of legislation, and i mean a lot...but its has not gone anywhere becuase harry reid, will not bring it to the floor of the senate.
 
NIMBY said:
I said hysterical fear, not historical fear, though the GOPees have more raw skin in the ACA law going back to when they wrote the damn thing during Reagan's 2nd term .
Click to expand...

God I wish people would stop blatantly lying and/or being blatantly dishonest about this.

Since I don't know if you're ignoring reality and facts, or if you just don't know it, I'm not going to waste to much of my time and just repost my previous comment on this absolutely false statement:

Zyphlin said:
I’m still amazed you’re pushing this idiotic trope. The Law (PPACA) wasn't conceived by the Heritage Foundation, and continuing to repeat this idiotic talking point either shows you to be wantonly dishonest or extremely ignorant on this topic. There are a multitude of differences between the ACA and the health care proposals made by the Heritage Foundation (Which formed the foundation for the oft referenced ’93 bill that was supported, and then quickly rejected, by Republicans).

For example, the Heritage Foundation’s plan didn’t deem individuals up to the age of 27 as “children”. Rather than a significant Medicaid expansion, it suggested to reform welfare under the same principles Heritage pushed for welfare reform allowing states more “flexability” (including to reduce coverage). It even included a Medicare vouchering system similar to Paul Ryan’s proposal; something ACA doesn’t have.

This of course doesn’t even touch on the notion that you’re referencing a single instance TWENTY YEARS AGO that ignores the fact that individuals beliefs, views, ideas, and solutions can be impacted by the context of the time and situation one is living in. For example, the notion that emergency rooms must treat anyone that comes is a common notion today, a simple fact of life. In ’89, this was a new legislative reality and people on all sides were spitballing in a reactionary manner. Still, even ignoring the glaring contextual differences (and even some significantly policy difference) the only thing you really have is that both mandate health insurance in some fashion or to some degree (and even that isn't exactly similar).

Claiming that the ACA was “Conceived” by the Heritage Foundation because it has some similar provisions is akin to saying the David Bowie “Conceived” Ice Ice Baby because they included the same hook.
Click to expand...
 
Zyphlin said:
God I wish people would stop blatantly lying and/or being blatantly dishonest about this.

Since I don't know if you're ignoring reality and facts, or if you just don't know it, I'm not going to waste to much of my time and just repost my previous comment on this absolutely false statement:
Click to expand...

And though state exchanges were GOP ideas, the GOP refuses to open these exchanges they control..From your post, I'm assuming it is okay to call someone a liar or blatantly dishonest upstairs..You should join the current D. ISSA road show of deceit to equate "navigators" with Acorn .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom