Poll: Majority of Republicans want Paul and Gingrich to drop out

While i cant speak for all paul supporters, i can say everyone i know will vote paul in nov, by write in, even if hes on someone elses ticket.

If you vote for a warmongering neocon, every time a soldier dies in combat, you can thank yourself.

Country first party second, obama, mitt or rick, its all the same (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Hm... I'm a new graduate and a woman... guess I'm out of the loop. Apparently I should be voting for Ron Paul...

 

Paul Ryan is just another of the "Social Conservatives" of the "Christian Right" that endorses large authoritarian government. Yes, he's offered some budget reduction measures, some with merit, but he still endorses an authoritarian government and has never proposed actually balancing the US budget by making the draconian cuts in military spending that would be required. He doesn't really offer a change to the status quo and many independents see his hypocracy as a politician.

Without the independent vote, which neither Romney or Paul Ryan can secure, the Republicans don't stand a chance in November.

Unless the Republicans stop opposing women's Rights related to contraception and abortion and start supporting same-gender marriages that they are not going to gain the independent vote. "Conservatives" traditionally supported civil rights and opposed denial of equal protection under the law but that has changed in the last 40 years and today they oppose enforcement of the 14th Amendment which provides protections for the individual from government. They're promoting a Christian theocracy for American that violates the Rights of the People and it doesn't sit well with independents.

 

Firstly, no one is against contraception. They're against forcing people of religions who believe that contraception is bad to offer contraception to people. Secondly, if the Republicans start supporting abortion and gay-marriage, they'll lose most of the conservative vote.

 

Romney will be just as much as a flop as McCain was, and when he added Palin to make the ticket a bit more exciting, clear thinking folks still couldn't wrap their heads around such choice.
Only strict party voters will vote for whatever is selected for them, no questions ask, and the same old will continue, again and again.
What could have been the signs of a new era has turned out to be hypocritical lip service rallies, and those attending have lost all credibility.
Paul joining Ronmey? I hope he doesn't even consider...Paul that is.

 

I don't agree with Paul Ryan either. He's cut from the same cloth as Romney but the budget cuts hits a strong chord with many voters (even though they are just a lightly more glorified version of the 2011 budget which was unanimously ridiculed by all) and that could sway some votes.

It looked like the republicans would be able to recapture the White House but the GOP is going to a place where the average voter can't help but think they did vote for anyone but them.

 

Its not a matter of supporting, its a matter of Constitution, iow, getting out of the way.
Now, that goes for religious institutions as well. No one should force them to offer what is against their religious beliefs, not Dems, not Repubs.

 

Have you ever heard any of Santorum's speeches?

If under the law its my right to claim an expense from my employer, why should I suffer just because my employer has a different view over it. If I work for a Muslim organisation and spend my salary on alcohol does that give my employer the right to reduce my salary by that amout? It accounts to pretty much the same thing. Either you ask everyone to pay it or you ask no one to pay it. With such laws, going for a middle ground only exposes it to loopholes which everyone tries to exploit.

 

I guess since I've been the one suggesting these lightweights drop out of the race a long time ago on this very forum, and in fact still have a post going strong just below this one stating as much, that staying ahead of the curve on these crucial matters just comes natural for me. Now the trick is to get those lightweights to drop out so that we can concentrate on building up Romney to take out the Marxist socialist el pronto.

 

Would lightweights be the ones with enough courage to actually want for real change, not the same old D and R dosey doe?

 

By lightweights I'm talking about those particular candidates as being unelectable to represent the Republicans going forward.

 

Which will still (*)(*)(*)(*) of a whole lot of their base-not a good idea in politics. If you screw over your base, it will look like "Well who else will they be willing to screw over to win. Can't stick with the team they had first." Not sure if that's a good way to put it.

Also: The Republicans want exactly what your last statement was.

 

Let's look at this another way: let's say that you're an employer, an employer of a proffessed Catholic workplace. It is against, not only your religion, but also against what your entire company stands for, and against what most of your clients are against, to accept contraceptions. Any person working for you should be willing to accept that they will have to pay for their own contraceptives, or get insurance from an outside source.

By the way, I have heard most of Santorum's speeches. I really don't like the guy.

 

Romney is not gonna fix a thing.

No real plans and a puppet.

 

Evidently you hadn't read Romney's 54 or 57 page outline on his strategies to create jobs and produce our own energy.

 

They should stay in.

We need a brokered convention.

 

Sad to say, but I tend to agree.

 

Doesn't that defeat the whole separation of church and state argument?

Many of the elite like Romney pay a tax of mere 13 to 15% while even their secretaries pay tax at more than double that rate. romney has said that he would encourage investment by reducing taxing on these same entrepreneurs and large corporations i.e those already paying a tax rate much lower than other Americans. He is for increasing the defence budget, the major source of the deficit. He has no real plans for cutting expenditure and even if he has any, they will be easily outweighed by the increase in defence spending. What option has he left to decrease the deficit? Increase taxes on the remaining 99%.

 

What would be the point. At this stage, Romney is going to be the nominee no matter what. Even if he does not reach the magic 1144 no, he will be so close to it that he ould easily cut a couple of deals and he would secure the nomination.

 

It does if the "state" tries to impose it's laws on the "religion". If the workplace is based around a religion, they should be allowed to follow the beliefs of their religion without the state interfering.

 

Three major issues are related to this.

If we address the "contraception coverage" issue then it overwhelmingly relates to the Catholic Church were a poll reflected that 98% of Catholic women use contraception at some point in their lives. Apparently the Pope is wrong as to the religious beliefs of Catholic women.

Next is that including contraception benefits reduces the cost of health insurance by reducing the pregnancy rate and pregnancy is a major health cost. To exclude contraception based upon a cost/benefit analysis merely means that the insurance has to cost more for the "employer" and I doubt that the employer wants to pay a penalty for it's exclusion.

Finally, the mandated insurance is for the employees and not for the employer. If the insurance is mandated then the mandate must be identical for all employers under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.


Based upon the last reason alone why do Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all oppose equal protection under the law for ALL Women? It is a Constitutional requirement so why do they all oppose the US Constitution?

 

I agree with everything you said here. Paul being in the race has pushed the conversation towards a smaller, less authoritarian Government, which is a good thing. That said, I also have major disagreements with Paul on several key issues, and I'm not sure how that would affect me in the voting booth. I have major disagreements with the others, as well.

Many of the college aged Ron Paul supporters here (the drugs and anti-war hippy types voting for hot button issues) have stated that they will vote for Obama if Ron Paul is not the candidate. I think this reflects their immaturity and emotion based reasoning. Perhaps after Obama's 2nd term, they will have gained enough maturity to realize they made a big mistake.

 

Remember, the coverage is for employees not the employers. Plus, the church has no objection to hiring people who use contraception so they shouldn't have objection to paying for its cost when mandated by the federal government.

 

As a card carrying Libertarian I won't even vote for Ron Paul as he's not a libertarian in spite of the fact that many label him as one. He merely has more commonality with libertarian beliefs than any other Republican but he's still a Republican. That aside I can comment on this statement.

While perhaps immature the young intellectual voters are probably correct in their choosing to support Obama over Romney based upon historical precedent.

Most newly elected presidents have a political agenda that supersedes national interests so during their first term they generally have a very negative impact on America. By the end of their first term they've pretty much shot their load and get around to national interests as opposed to party interests.

We don't have to go back far into history to show this as former President Bush basically did all the damage he could do to America during his first term and then had to spend his second term trying to fix it. Within Bush's first term he got the US involved in two unnecessary wars both of which are ending up being disasterous decisions plus he flagrantly violated the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments by so many acts such as torture, denying due process of the law, spying on Americans, denial of habeas corprus, etc. that the reputation of America was almost totally destroyed around the world. It wasn't until his second term that these actions were finally able to be addressed, some were left unresolved and were corrected under Obama, and some still remain to be resolved.

Obama pretty much shot his load with "Obamacare" and the "Stimulus Package" (which was a continuation of Bush's only real screw up in his second term when he created TARP). Obamacare may or may not be oveturned in part by the Supreme Court which is currently addressing it. In either case that issue is behind him so he won't be doing anything that will really harm America if re-elected.

Romney on the other hand represents a very real threat to America based upon his political agenda. He's shown himself to be a "Social Conserative" which is a nice way of phasing "Christian theocracy" advocate. Nothing could be further from being a true American than trying to force Christianity down the throats of America. The founders rejected the authoritarianism of religion as the foundation of government and yet Romney, Santorum and Gingrich all advocate an authoritarian government based upon religious teachings.

When it comes to fiscal policy there's fundamentally no difference between Romney and Obama. Both advocate increases in the deficit with no real end in sight so both are equally irresponsible from a fiscal standpoint. The primary difference is that Romney wants government to infringe upon the Rights of the People in violation of the 14th Amendment. We really don't want or need that.

The safer bet, lacking anyone that would actually be positive such as Ron Paul, would be to select the lessor of two evils and Obama is the lessor of two evils when compared to Romney. Obama has already screwed America but Romney hasn't yet but would.

Do we want to get screwed twice in eight years by electing Romney or only once in eight years by re-electing Obama is the question as I see it.

 

Its been stated numerous times that the 1% rich like Romney pay about 90% of all the taxes in America. Since when is it a bad thing to get govt to decrease taxes on anyone (especially the rich) with the savings being reinvested into our economy? Stop playing class envy, class warfare and favoring welath redistribution. Those are all socialistic policies in case you didn't know, and theyare all economic killers. No where does any Republican (especially Romney) want to see taxes increased on anyone.