Romney or Ron Paul?

Paul supporters claim all the Republican candidates except Paul are exactly the same.

Here are some FACTS [sorry if this bothers Paul fans]

Republicans took CONTROL of Congress under Clinton. Congress, not the President does the SPENDING!

The Republican Congress, led by "one of the exact same candidates" managed to CUT welfare, and to BALANCE the budget and have a SURPLUS. The surpluses amounted to a total of $559 billion dollars over the years. So That is over half a TRILLION we did not borrow, and interest on that half Trillion that we will never have to pay.

Then we had a Republican Congress WITH a Republican president. One party controlling both the WH and the Congress can be a bad thing. The Republicans spent too much. They rolled up debt again. When the Republican president, GW Bush took office the debt was at $5,723,237,439,563.59 Republicans held control of Congress until Jan 3 2007. On that date, newly elected Democrats were seated with control of BOTH Houses of Congress. The national debt on that date was $8,677,214,255,313.07. An increase of $2,953,976,815,749.48 in SIX YEARS OF BUSH AND REPUBLICAN CONTROL. [less than a half a trillion per year DEBT INCREASE, not deficits] The Democrats held control of Congress through Fiscal Year 2011 [10/01/xxxx to 09/30/xxxx} , and still control the Senate. Under Democrat control the national debt rose from $8,677,214,255,313.07 to $15,236,332,233,848.35 last Thursday.
All politicians, all Presidents over 216 years amassed $8.7 TRILLION in debt. Democrats since 2007, FIVE YEARS, have increased that 216 year total by $6,559,117,978,535.28. OR $1,311,823,595,707.06 PER YEAR.

Republicans controlling Congress had their HIGHEST DEFICIT in FY 2004 at $412 billion dollars. After that peak, they brought the deficit down each year until their last year with Congressional control, the Republican deficit was $161 billion dollars. The very next year under Democrat control the deficit rose to $458.7 billion. Far surpassing the highest EVER Republican deficit. And the year after the Democrat posted a deficit over ONE TRILLION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY. And they have not had a deficit under $1 TRILLION since.

Yet Paul fans say that if Paul doesn't win, it's OK for obama to stay in the WH.

The above shows that there is considerable difference between the Democrats in power and the Republicans running to replace b.o.

Be ardent in the support of your man [and be truthful], be committed to your man.

BUT THE NATION COMES FIRST. IF your man does not win, you STILL must get the insanity of the Democrats OUT of power.
The candidates ARE NOT all the same as obama.

ALL of us that believe that Paul has no chance to win, ALL SAY, if he IS the candidate, we WILL vote for him. You Paulists MUST also back the Republican candidate if Paul is not it. b.o. must GO! If Paul does NOT win the nomination, you all MUST, for the good of the nation, put all your energy and enthusiasm into defeating b.o.

 

Horse(*)(*)(*)(*). Romney's more of a menace to our nation's budget than Obama is.
With a Republican majority in both houses, Obama'a a lame duck. But Romney can get them to go along with all sorts of reckless spending increases.
I, unlike you, do not confuse my allegiance to this country with my allegiance to the Republican Party. Nor do I suffer under the delusion that all Republicans are created equal.

You can do whatever you like, but there's no way in Hell I'm voting for Romney.

So having said that... you are willing to vote for my guy, but I'm not willing to vote for yours. Seems to me that if your priority is getting a Republican elected, you'd best start backing Paul.

 

i am not aware of any position romney is on any issue.

 

You site a Republican controlled congress under a Democratic administration and cresit them for balancing the budget, and then in the same post suggest that the budget can't be balanced under a Democratic administration. You contradict your own point.

Romney cannot beat Obama, whether Paul runs as an independent or not. The establishment wants 4 more years of Obama. That is why the establishment is behind Romney. That is why the same corporate donors that back Obama are backing Romney. They are hedging their bet. Either way, with an Obama vs. Romney presidential race, the establishment wins.

 

I "suggested" nothing. I stated the facts of what happened. Your erroneous misinterpretations are your own fault.

And you have no connection with reality if you harbor the tiniest thought that Paul can beat anyone.

Stick with your conspiracy theories. They keep you warm at night.

 

When it is over you are going to look incredibly foolish. Paul is not and will not be a factor. He never has been, he never will be. Paul is a sideshow that mouths the right words.

If he were to be the candidate, I would vote for him because I WILL vote no matter what and I will NOT vote for b.o.. But if I had to vote for Paul it would be with the sad, but certain, knowledge that b.o. would be reelected. Paul will not win the nomination or the office.

And if your man is not the candidate and you do not vote because he is not, then you by your own choice, are un-American.

 

This!

Romney has no spefic position. He has different positions on the same issues.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9njHHyRI7g"]MittvMitt.com: The story of two men trapped in one body - YouTube[/ame]

 

Romney has changed!

 

I'm sorry you're bitter because the ideals you thought you were supporting in backing the Republicans for the past however many decades weren't actually being represented by the people that duped you into supporting them. You can hold onto your incorrect belief that the Republican party represents something different than the Democrats until the day you die, but it will never be true.

Mitt Romney is bought and paid for by the same interests that brought you Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc., etc. So long as you support the Republican status quo, you support big government spending and excessive government control.

My wife keeps me warm at night.

 

Check my posting history. you will find that I am a registered INDEPENDENT. And that I have never been a registered Republican, and once WAS a registered Democrat. I have stated on many occasions that I distrust the Democrats 100% and that I distrust the Republicans about 98%. So I am not chained to any false hopes.

And again I stated an accurate account of what has happened. How you interpret reality through your conspiracy laden fog of unreality is not my concern. And your mistaken opinions about who is best able to repair this nation are less than meaningless to me.

 

If you distrust the Republicans so much, why are you so determined that they are the answer?

I don't live in a conspiracy laden fog. I live in reality. Our reality is that the choice between Republicans and Democrats is effectively no choice at all as they both are bought and paid for by the same globalist interests. Ron Paul is the only candidate that represents anything resembling something different from the status quo.

Incidentally, I am a registered Republican. I registered Republicain in 1996 when I registered to vote because I was vehemently opposed to Bill Clinton and wasn't informed enough to realize that both parties are equally and utterly corrupt. The whole process os corrupt and for anyone looking for any legitimate change, it makes no sense to support candidates that represent the same governance as usual. Romney represents everything that is wrong with Obama.

 

Umm... I never said he would. Please do try to keep up.

Your cheap labels don't sway me. You're gonna have to try harder.
My refusal to vote for your guy isn't about my guy. It's about your guy. I'm not about to vote for a Republican who is more dangerous than Obama. Ain't happening.

 

Oh. So you don't actually have any say in the Republican Primary. That's cool.

 

I defy you to find a link to "MY GUY." I have not endorsed ANY candidate. I have consistently stated that I will be voting for the REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. Even if it is Paul. Because b.o. IS an obamination. I would expect Paul to lose, but I would do what I can and vote FOR him over obama. Even though it is my firm conviction that he is the worst choice to beat obama. You Paulobots get all incensed at me and try to insult me and lie to me, and WHAT am I saying about Paul? I state that I agree with much of what he says and stands for,,,,,,,BUT,, I've have long since given up on any results from Paul. 35 years of talk.

Now you would go bugfreak over what the Democrats would say about Paul. They would rip and slash until he was hamburger laying in the street. and little, if any, of what they would say is true. Already they are producing negative adds against Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum. Why are the b.o. people NOT doing negative adds about Paul? Do you think they are AFRAID to lie about him like they lie about the others? They are not AFRAID of anyone [they might have been afraid of Cain] They aren't wasting money on negative adds against Paul because they KNOW he is not a factor.

If they HAD to run against Paul they would make a comedy show out of his record of failed bills. And remember they would be playing to an audience of politically uninformed people. Not people that frequent a political forum. They'd make a comedy of Paul to people that don't know and don't care and just want to be entertained. Paul would provide their entertainment, but Paul would be the joke.

Paul has voted his conscience for all his years in office. Do you not know that every politician can make that claim and provide statistics to prove it?
EVERY POLITICIAN can do that, it is BASIC. Is the general public going to spend 20 minutes pouring over congressional Records to verify their claim? No, they won't spend a minute. They will believe or discount the claim. Including Paul's

The PRIMARIES,,,,,,,,these ARE the most informed voters NOW. The general election will have much LESS informed people voting. Paul is below 20% with the informed and concerned. Where is he going to be with the voters that don't know and barely care?

 

Why would you vote for a liar? And please present one example supporting your claim that Ron Paul is crazy or a hypocrite.

I'll start things off to be fair.

Romney

Crazy Because: he would choose to continue killing thousands of innocents in foreign countries whose inhabitants pose no threat to us. This incites said inhabitants into anti-american, and probably violent, actions.

Hypocrite Because: he has no stance other than mass appeal. btw flip flop

Santorum

Same Reasons

 

Nice surprise!

 

I take any R over Barak Hussein Obama. Not a hard choice.

 

Excepting Ron Paul, it really amounts to no choice at all, since the rest of the pack represents the same status quo that Obama represents.

 

I'm mostly Libertarian, and Ron Paul would be my second choice behind Gary Johnson.

 

Romney is a progressive fascist that is a carbon copy of PrazBO... and Ron Paul is a candidate that espouses self reliance and liberty... hmmmm, who should I vote for???

 

I hear Ron Paul is now saying he's more constitutionalist than libertarian. Not that it matters. He still doesn't have a hope in hades.

 

You seem to be awfully concerned about Ron Paul considering you think he has such little chance of winning anything. Why do you think that is? Is it possible that the corporate oligarchs that spoon feed your thoughts to you are afraid of Ron Paul?

 

Is it possible you've forgotten this is a Ron Paul thread? As such people posting their opinions about him, good or bad, isn't concern; it's called being on topic. If you don't want to read people saying bad things about Ron Paul, I suggest you read a non Ron Paul thread.

 

Might be a surprise to some, but at this point, I'd honestly prefer Paul over Romney.

 

He has the best chance of beating Obama straight up of anyone running. He's not polarizing and the establishment is afraid of him.