• 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?

Sabanist said:
So by that logic you think and insider is a good thing. What is it about pauls foreign policies that bother you.

And you think carson is unqualified due to which beliefs?
Click to expand...

No that doesn't necessarily follow at all, I'm simply inclined to discount insider/outsider status completely in my decision. However I'm more skeptical of people who run on their 'outsider' credentials because it's usually a good sign that you have a populist on your hands.

Paul's tendency towards non-interventionism and a scaled back US foreign policy is nothing short of disastrous in my view. Especially given the mistakes of the past administration and the vital juncture we're at in the world right now. I think Carson is unqualified because he is a radically socially conservative young earth creationist who is riding the coattails of the far right media sphere with his outrageous commentary. I would never vote for him.
 
And why would you say its over for mitt? The country is having serious buyers remorse about bho and wish they wouldve voted for mitt. He won the gop nomination before, he could again.

People keep clamoring for a change in the status quo but when candidates like paul and carson get mentioned they run the other way
 
Sherman123 said:
No that doesn't necessarily follow at all, I'm simply inclined to discount insider/outsider status completely in my decision. However I'm more skeptical of people who run on their 'outsider' credentials because it's usually a good sign that you have a populist on your hands.

Paul's tendency towards non-interventionism and a scaled back US foreign policy is nothing short of disastrous in my view. Especially given the mistakes of the past administration and the vital juncture we're at in the world right now. I think Carson is unqualified because he is a radically socially conservative young earth creationist who is riding the coattails of the far right media sphere with his outrageous commentary. I would never vote for him.
Click to expand...

So you believe the us should get involved in all conflicts? At what point do you think its not a good idea?

With regard to carson, so you are a single issue voter? And its not even an issue, its a belief. And are you certain its true and not a fiction the left fabricated from a quote?

Im good either way, i think he would be a strict constitutionalist if he were elected. Not a monarch such as we have today. Mor would he be a big govt spender like gwb.
 
Sabanist said:
So you believe the us should get involved in all conflicts? At what point do you think its not a good idea?

With regard to carson, so you are a single issue voter? And its not even an issue, its a belief. And are you certain its true and not a fiction the left fabricated from a quote?

Im good either way, i think he would be a strict constitutionalist if he were elected. Not a monarch such as we have today. Mor would he be a big govt spender like gwb.
Click to expand...

I think there are many conflicts the US should be involved in and/or should remain involved in. Whatever is necessary to preserve our hegemonic role in the world and continue to spread democracy and contain our enemies.

No I'm not a single issue voter. But I do have personal litmus tests and not being a reactionary young earth creationist is on that list.
 
the ONLY one on that list who could win the presidency is jeb bush ... and then only if he was running against hillary clinton. then the name recognition would be a wash

portman would be an excellent - read electable - candidate, which is why the GOP will not run him. seems they are only interested in unelectable tickets ... like the democratic party of kerry, gore and dukakis

huntsman has proven that he does not have the necessary political instincts despite having his father's money. would be a superb statesman for some administration, however

the one not listed, the one who has the potential to beat almost any demo candidate, is condi rice. black, female, gay, smart, experienced. she has it all - with the possible exception of no desire to run. y'all should be courting her. explain that if she does not run, hillary will win. that she needs to run, not for herself, but for our country. that's the winning ticket
 
Sabanist said:
And why would you say its over for mitt? The country is having serious buyers remorse about bho and wish they wouldve voted for mitt. He won the gop nomination before, he could again.

People keep clamoring for a change in the status quo but when candidates like paul and carson get mentioned they run the other way
Click to expand...

buyer's remorse. good one
did you hear the joke. mitt romney
you will never hear him described as a man of the people. he is much too aloof. a mile wide and an inch deep
bet you cannot still tell us what mitt stood for
 
justabubba said:
the ONLY one on that list who could win the presidency is jeb bush ... and then only if he was running against hillary clinton. then the name recognition would be a wash

portman would be an excellent - read electable - candidate, which is why the GOP will not run him. seems they are only interested in unelectable tickets ... like the democratic party of kerry, gore and dukakis
Click to expand...

:roll: yeah. forgive me if after McCain and Romney I'm a bit jaded on taking liberals advice on who is or isn't electable.

the one not listed, the one who has the potential to beat almost any demo candidate, is condi rice. black, female, gay, smart, experienced. she has it all - with the possible exception of no desire to run. y'all should be courting her. explain that if she does not run, hillary will win. that she needs to run, not for herself, but for our country. that's the winning ticket
Click to expand...

Rice would have problems winning the nomination and then turning out the Base, as she is pro choice. Also, it's worth noting, this was the subject of a Morris book, and if she ran we would have to deal with him being on the TV all the time.





Why no Scott Walker?
 
justabubba said:
buyer's remorse. good one
did you hear the joke. mitt romney
you will never hear him described as a man of the people. he is much too aloof. a mile wide and an inch deep
bet you cannot still tell us what mitt stood for
Click to expand...

Yeah. When looking at a CDC that can't figure out Ebola, top VA officials who apparently are unaware of the same waits that their president ran against as a President, a foreign policy that even the administrations' former officials agree is stupid, piecemeal, and reactive, all overseen by a President who apparently learns about all these things on the news, who would ever think that competence would be something that we would want in a Candidate.
 
Sabanist said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



The only way that anyone on that list will ever see the inside of the White House is as a guest. The next president will be a Democrat. Wait and see.

I wouldn't even think about voting for any of those people.
 
TurtleDude said:
my sister in law is a bible thumping true believer. she voted third party because
she claims Mormons aren't Christians.
Click to expand...
 I asked her if she thought "Reverend Wright" was a more a Christian than Mitt. she admits she was an idiot now
Click to expand...



Mormons aren't Christians, they're Mormons.

They worship in Mormon Temples,not Christian Churches.
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
Mormons aren't Christians, they're Mormons.

They worship in Mormon Temples,not Christian Churches.
Click to expand...

By that reasoning most every sect is not christian.
Ill hope you were being amusing.
 
shrubnose said:
Mormons aren't Christians, they're Mormons.

They worship in Mormon Temples,not Christian Churches.
Click to expand...

They believe in the holy trinity, they are a sect of christianity
 
Sabanist said:
1.)Changing gears on abortion is not going to happen.
2.) Its an evil practice and republicans will continue to fight it.
3.)Rand paul is an antifederalist, which is why i support him and could see him wanting the fed government out of the gay marriage debate
Click to expand...

1.) I never suggested to "change gears" on it, I simply siad it can not be part of the running "platforms"
2.) nothing "evil" about it in general and also many republicans support abortion just like many dems do not :shrug:
3.) well the fed arent in the debate, there isnt one but the point again is, if its part of the running platform it will lose him the election, its that simple.

those issues can NOT be focused on in a presidential platform because they will run a person out of the race

if you would like to discuss those issues theres MANY threads on them, dont want to derail here
 
Sabanist said:
Isolationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Read up
Click to expand...

Two distinct and unrelated concepts that are occasionally erroneously categorized as Isolationism are:

Non-interventionism Non-interventionism – is the belief that political rulers should avoid military alliances with other nations and to avoid interfering in wars bearing no direct impact on their nation. However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, unlike isolationists.


Thanks for proving my point.
 
Geoist said:
Two distinct and unrelated concepts that are occasionally erroneously categorized as Isolationism are:

Non-interventionism Non-interventionism – is the belief that political rulers should avoid military alliances with other nations and to avoid interfering in wars bearing no direct impact on their nation. However, most non-interventionists are supporters of free trade, travel, and support certain international agreements, unlike isolationists.


Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Its debatable. Either way you understand what the issue is you are just attempting to be argumentative

While some scholars, such as Robert J. Art, believe that the United States has an isolationist history, other scholars dispute this by describing the United States as following a strategy of unilateralism or non-interventionism instead.[9][10] Robert Art makes his argument in A Grand Strategy for America (2003).[9] Books that have made the argument that the United States followed unilaterism instead of isolationism include Walter A. McDougall's Promised Land, Crusader State (1997), John Lewis Gaddis's Surprise, Security, and the American Experience (2004), and Bradley F. Podliska's Acting Alone (2010).[11] Both sides claim policy prescriptions from George Washington's Farewell Address as evidence for their argument.[9][10]
 
AGENT J said:
1.) I never suggested to "change gears" on it, I simply siad it can not be part of the running "platforms"
2.) nothing "evil" about it in general and also many republicans support abortion just like many dems do not :shrug:
3.) well the fed arent in the debate, there isnt one but the point again is, if its part of the running platform it will lose him the election, its that simple.

those issues can NOT be focused on in a presidential platform because they will run a person out of the race

if you would like to discuss those issues theres MANY threads on them, dont want to derail here
Click to expand...

That simple for you maybe. Simple if you are a big federal government supporter. But if you would like to see the federal government reduced to a more balanced position as it was when the country was founded, paul is the best candidate
 
Sabanist said:
1.)That simple for you maybe.
2.)Simple if you are a big federal government supporter.
3.) But if you would like to see the federal government reduced to a more balanced position as it was when the country was founded, paul is the best candidate
Click to expand...

1.) no, this has nothing to do with me, its reality. I woud never say somethign like that based of of my sole views that would be dumb. Its american politics, maybe read my first post again.
2.) uhm those two things are less government
3.) I do like less government and again that doesnt change what can and cant be in a platform to win president.

Do you HONESTLY think that if ANY candidate had platform with two of the main issues being banning abortions and denying gays equal that it would lead to the white house?

again not saying they cant THINK that way but making it main platform issues is a sure loser
 
obvious Child said:
Huntsman accepted science. That was enough for him to be cast out into the cold.
Click to expand...

Huntsman "accepting science" is hardly what did him in. If you're going to point to his comments on global warming and evolution as part of what did him in it'd be more accurate to point at the way in which he went about speaking of it. Throughout his entire campaign he made it a point to be very neutral in tone towards Obama and the Democrats, not overly aggressive, trying to remain "positive"....and then all of a sudden his first outburst of seeming annoyance or anger or energy is in a belittling fashion towards other individuals running/part of the base he's attempting to attract.

In an election year where the base was desperately looking for a fighter it was unwise to come out as an even keeled measured individual. It was even more unwise to allow your one moment of looking like you COULD be a fighter to come about being aimed at your own side.

It was one of NUMEROUS missteps his campaign made during the primaries that just left me shaking my head.
 
I dont think the majority support abortion, i do think they support the freedom for gays to marry.

So i would think a candidate could win with a prolife and non intervention platform
 
Sabanist said:
Its debatable.
Click to expand...

No, as indicated by your own source, it is not.

Either way you understand what the issue is you are just attempting to be argumentative
Click to expand...

Essentially what you are saying here is that the definitions of words do not matter. There is a big difference between a non-interventionist and an isolationist.
 
Jeb Bush, Chris Christie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom