Republicans: Who do you want as your nominee?

1) he was against one part of the civil rights act
2) What "Nazi's"

Care to make up anymore (*)(*)(*)(*)?

 

Anyone who wants to get our men and women killed for in needless wars hardly "supports the troops". I dont see how people dying over nothing is "patriotic"

 

I plan on voting for Donald Trumps Tupee!!

 

creators of stormfront a neo-nazi website

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/ima...-around-with-neo-nazis-17480-1325034927-8.jpg

also ron paul is opposed to us fighting in WW1 & WW2

[video=youtube;2k0u_v9T0F8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0u_v9T0F8[/video]

 

A random picture when Ron Paul has taken pictures with i am sure thousands of people.. Try again.

You cant even follow a simple 1 min clip? He suggested we shouldnt have entered ww1 which lead to ww2 not what you are claiming.. I suggest you stop reading what ever quack blog you are reading and enter the read world.

 

being opposed to WW1 is the same thing as being opposed to WW2. in both wars WE got attacked first. LOTS of Americans were killed 1st. and you say do nothing. and people wonder why i say paul is weak on foreign policy

 

ww1 incorrect. ww2 Japan attacked us not Germany nor Italy... try again.

 

Ron is too old, so I'll support Rand, even if I'm not 100% sold on him.

 

LMFAO.... incorrect try again... you dont know (*)(*)(*)(*) about history....

WW1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_RMS_Lusitania

WW2: germany an Italy declared war on us first...

how about you learn some history dumb ass

 

"The contemporary investigations both in the UK and the United States into the precise causes of the ship's loss were obstructed by the needs of wartime secrecy and a propaganda campaign to ensure all blame fell upon Germany. Argument over whether the ship was a legitimate military target raged back and forth throughout the war as both sides made misleading claims about the ship. At the time she was sunk, she was carrying a large quantity of rifle ammunition and other supplies necessary for a war economy, as well as civilian passengers"

From your own link. And i wont report you this once for the personal attack.

 

They actually found that the Lusitania was carrying weapons to Britain, so Germany was justified in firing on it. We essentially set up conditions ourselves that lead to being involved in both conflicts.

In WW2, we tried the same thing to Germany that got us involved in WW1, but they wouldn't take the bait, so we couldn't justify ourselves in being on the defensive. So we went after their allies, specifically Japan. Japan's industry was heavily reliant on resources they couldn't get on their island, so they imported them from the US. the US, under FDR (who was very pro-chinese), Began provoking the japanese with economic warfare by first levying huge duties on products sent to Japan, then by Embargoing them, and Finally the US froze all Japanese assets in the US (Basically stealing from them), a few months later the Japanese hit Pearl harbor and the US goes, "we didn't see that coming!"

Not to mention that the placement of the fleet at Pearl harbor was intended to be made a target for the Japanese. The Pacific fleet commander had orders to harbor virtually the entire fleet, something he protested against, and threatened to resign over. He begged command to allow him to disperse the fleet, as he said that keeping the entire fleet tied up in one place like that was too dangerous. He was ignored. However to note, not a single aircraft carrier in the pacific fleet was at Pearl harbor at the time of the attack.

So yes, We put ourselves into these wars, they weren't forced on us.

 

Christie lost my vote when he snuggled up to obama after Sandy. He could have requested federal money without kissing up to the kenyan messiah.

Also, his speech at the GOP convention was not up to par. It was all about him.

 

Under what logic does snubbing the president in the process of disaster relief efforts = a respectable stance ?

Christie took the best course of action. If he did snub the president, he'd been cooked in the media for putting politics ahead of his people. All around, his popularity in polls went up due to him dropping politics and showing a unified American stance. Going the other way, it may or may not have hurt his people. It wouldn't have cost him as many political points in the GOP, but the damage to his image would have meant the end of his political career entirely.

Am I alone in thinking that you owe allegiance to your family first, your community second, local, state, regional, and national issues fall in line in that order after that... Not for some political ideology to score campaign contributions down the road?

 

That's pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dishonest, even for you. The very last sentence said "informing myself...[by] listening to commanders on the ground."

 

Huntsman is evil i hate him so much hes not really a republican they should kick him out of the party

 

Anyway, my pick would be Jon Huntsman, Chris Christie, or Rand Paul, with Huntsman as my primary choice.

But I don't think he'll run again.

 

changing it up here. i want santorum, or jindal. both are good and the only sane ones left in the party. the others are democrats like rubio and christie

 

The Lusitania was a British vessel. How was that an attack on the US?

 

Rand Paul or Ted Cruz.

 

I would like to have a ticket of Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Just to watch the Democrats heads explode.

 

I agree with Paul on most of that. I don't believe he's weak on foreign policy. We should not be the world's policeman, and there's nothing wrong with closing many of the overseas bases. Military can be cut of course after everything else is cut.

That said, I selected Santorum who I believe is more electable. My opinion could change. I think Jeb Bush is a stronger possibility than most people believe.

 

Gary Johnson, but Rand Paul will do.

 

From the laughter brought on by sure-to-be epic SNL skits?

 

Look at this chart.

After seeing that, if you still hold the opinion that cutting back military spending is unpatriotic, then you are insane. Our military is the most bloated in the world by a mile, 6X the second most expensive military. So if we cut our military by 66%, we would still be spending twice as much as the #2 spending. If we can't maintain our edge by spending double the money of the next country down, then WTF? If you think we shouldn't trim the fat on a behemoth like that, then you are not only fiscally irresponsible, and pro big-government, but you are probably clinically paranoid.

 

The GOP establishment is not going to let the TPs foist a nutter on the Party. They'll rally 'round their only viable choice early.

... and they obviously do not want a repeat of 2012's marathon musical electric chairs that looked more like a very long consolation night at a seedy comedy club.

​

The 2012 GOP ordeal made the Bataan Death March look like a stroll in the park.



.