Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's an empty phrase it has to be explained to make sense. A leader can be all sorts of things.

See, that's one believe what makes a good leader. Of course it is an idiotic thing to suggest in a democracy as everyone in power has usually around 45% opposition, but hey, lets throw out blanket terms cause we can't explain why Ron Paul really wouldn't be a good president.

It was giving examples of what one could think makes a good leader and why those in particular are wrong, it was hardly strawman, it was my point.

[edit] By the way, the lesser of two evils is still evil.

True, I don't want to get butt****ed by two black men with aids (Romney/Giuliani/Clinton), but to choose to be butt****ed by 1 black man with Aids (Huckabee/Obama) when there is a third option of living in eternal happiness ever after with slight necessary modifications (Ron Paul)...is ridiculous.

A-and I explained why, I didn't just throw it out there... are you not ****ing reading?

No, you gave moronic reasons, which you attributed as being my mindset and then bashed them, thats a SM.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I follow your logic on this and I even agree with some of it...however, your second paragraph is very disturbing.

You are obviously far from being an uninformed voter...at the very least, no doubt...this is why it is so disturbing. As a voter...regardless of the outcome that you think will happen (due to propaganda that you should know inside and out and recognize on a whim)...you should ALWAYS vote for the person that YOU feel best represents your interests in a leader...ALWAYS without exception...this is what your right as a voter is...to do otherwise is to betray your very right to vote and it is a form of dishonesty to cast a vote for someone that you didn't want to vote for.

*gets off soap box*

Not that I am off my soap box...

I see your point on Paul's foreign policy and raise you isolationism. I believe that Ron Paul is on the right mindset with his foreign policy but I think that he leans just a tad too much towards isolationism. If I were to place his foreign policy on a scale of 1 to 10...1 being perfect isolationism 10 being a butt raping "busy body" and 5 being a perfect balance...I would put Ron Paul at a 4...

Time will tell, though, on his foreign policy as he says things that he thinks people will want to hear about that...you and I are not the only ones who noticed his foreign policy so he will do something, whether positive or negative. (Though I think you rate him as a 2 or 3..)

You don't have to share my opinion, but I do feel that "electability" should be a consideration when choosing who you support, that is also my "right as a voter." Supporting a candidate who can't win, is essentially throwing out your vote. Like I said, I'd rather have a guy in office that shares some of my views and will accomplished some of what I want, than a guy who shares all my views, yet won't be able to accomplish anything for me.

As far as your "dishonesty, betraying etc. etc. etc." I never said "vote for a guy that you didn't want to vote for", now did I.

*kicks soapbox from under your foolish feet*

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes.

And who would be the candidate that shares them 60% of the time?

Also, I don't see why you think Ron Paul would accomplish less "good" than any of the other morons you might have as next president? Maybe we should rename "President" as "Most stupid douchebag of America", second being more descriptive. I don't like Ron Paul perfectly, but he is without a doubt the most fair, honest and best candidate you have, I'd put my effort into someone that would get the US from being the laughing stock of the world, but hey, that's just me, you can elect Giuliani, at least Jon Stewart will have a blast.

Or are you a conservative. mmm

Originally posted by lord xyz
What about the Democrats?

Or are you a conservative. mmm

I am not an idiot. So I can't really support Democrats. Anyways, you know my positions I discussed them with you, I am more of a true conservative and I am more of a true liberal than any of the candidates including Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Robtard
A-and I explained why, I didn't just throw it out there... are you not ****ing reading?

No, you gave moronic reasons, which you attributed as being my mindset and then bashed them, thats a SM.

I did not, you might have viewed it as that, but I gave reasons that people might mean when saying "good leader" and explained why they are stupid in a joking manner. I wasn't saying "This is what Robtard thinks, the moron".

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not an idiot. So I can't really support Democrats. Anyways, you know my positions I discussed them with you, I am more of a true conservative and I am more of a true liberal than any of the candidates including Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You explained it after my post asking for an explanation, in which I also explained which types of "good leaders" make no sense. Not sure what your problem is with that, really.

I did not, you might have viewed it as that, but I gave reasons that people might mean when saying "good leader" and explained why they are stupid in a joking manner. I wasn't saying "This is what Robtard thinks, the moron".

We're both not morons, we're talking about politics, you should have known what I meant when saying "good leader", i.e. having the ability to lead, to sway the opposition to his side when needed and having he ability to accomplish his goals. Not that "Osama won't fear him" nonsense you spouted.

Yes, there is always opposition in a Democracy, that is a given, having the ability to sway part of the opposition to your views/side is how leaders accomplish things. I don't see that ability in Ron Paul.

Listen, I'm not telling anybody they shouldn't support Ron Paul, support whomever you like... go on and stick that "Ron Paul" bumper sticker over the Nader and David Duke stickers.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How can somone who isn't an idiot be a conservative? hmm

I'm conservative...

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm conservative...

There's the classical sense on being conservative, then there is the (US) Conservative Party, which gives conservatives a bad name.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're both not morons, we're talking about politics, you should have known what I meant when saying "good leader", i.e. having the ability to lead, to sway the opposition to his side when needed and having he ability to accomplish his goals. Not that "Osama won't fear him" nonsense you spouted.

That's the problem though it is not at all clear what one means when they say that it gets thrown around way too much.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, here is always opposition in a Democracy, that is a given, having the ability to sway part of the opposition to your views/side is how leaders accomplish things. I don't see that ability in Ron Paul.

And that's seriously your major point in deciding? For one I don't see how that applies to Ron Paul (apparently he gets support from Republicans, Independents and Democrats and explains his points more reasonable and less angry than anyone else in the debates), and it's not even that important of a skill. and someone that supports my view only 60% must disagree with my points 40%...what if he just gets those through? Then I am ****ed even more than I was before. The whole idea in a democracy is to elect the opinions the majority holds, you should always vote for the person that supports yours. If 80% of the people think like you, they might instead of voting in an amazing president, elect a ****tard like Huckabee or Clinton because it is a lesser evil....well, it's still a ****ing evil though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Listen, I'm not telling anybody they shouldn't support Ron Paul, support whomever you like... go on and stick that "Ron Paul" bumper sticker over the Nader and David Duke stickers.

One of the main problems is the undemocratic nature of the American election process. Third parties don't even have any chance even if 20% of the people would want them you are stuck with your idiot major parties. Which is really just another form of authoritarian government, sure, you have a choice, but it is a pointless one. In part because Americans think that voting for a third party that supports their ideal is a waste, which it never is.

Originally posted by lord xyz
How can somone who isn't an idiot be a conservative? hmm

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the problem though it is not at all clear what one means when they say that it gets thrown around way too much.

And that's seriously your major point in deciding? For one I don't see how that applies to Ron Paul (apparently he gets support from Republicans, Independents and Democrats and explains his points more reasonable and less angry than anyone else in the debates), and it's not even that important of a skill. and someone that supports my view only 60% must disagree with my points 40%...what if he just gets those through? Then I am ****ed even more than I was before. The whole idea in a democracy is to elect the opinions the majority holds, you should always vote for the person that supports yours. If 80% of the people think like you, they might instead of voting in an amazing president, elect a ****tard like Huckabee or Clinton because it is a lesser evil....well, it's still a ****ing evil though.

One of the main problems is the undemocratic nature of the American election process. Third parties don't even have any chance even if 20% of the people would want them you are stuck with your idiot major parties. Which is really just another form of authoritarian government, sure, you have a choice, but it is a pointless one. In part because Americans think that voting for a third party that supports their ideal is a waste, which it never is.

To me, having a leader that will be able to accomplish, is important to me, you can disagree, as it's my opinion. BTW, I am voting for a person that supports my views, maybe not every view, but it's still there. I wouldn't vote for some I disagreed with on the majority of issues.

Listen, I'm all for having a third (or more) party, it would make the two current parties stick to what they say and not just talk out the side of their mouths, like they always do... unfortunately, it isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I make best of a bad situation.

Originally posted by Robtard
To me, having a leader that will be able to accomplish, is important to me, you can disagree, as it's my opinion. BTW, I am voting for a person that supports my views, maybe not every view, but it's still there. I wouldn't vote for some I disagreed with on the majority of issues.

Listen, I'm all for having a third (or more) party, it would make the two current parties stick to what they say and not just talk out the side of their mouths, like they always do... unfortunately, it isn't going to happen anytime soon, so I make best of a bad situation.

I figured that much, I am just saying, rather take the guy that has 90% of your opinions than the one with 60%. Even if they aren't elected, you make a statement. A vote is not wasted.

Sadly your last sentence is part of the reason why it won't happen.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I figured that much, I am just saying, rather take the guy that has 90% of your opinions than the one with 60%. Even if they aren't elected, you make a statement. A vote is not wasted.

Sadly your last sentence is part of the reason why it won't happen.

That sounds good on paper, but in the end, I end up with another George W. Bush; who really wants that?

Not today; it will though, people will eventually reach their bullshit limit and someone solid will come along.

Originally posted by Robtard
That sounds good on paper, but in the end, I end up with another George W. Bush; who really wants that?

Not today; it will though, people will eventually reach their bullshit limit and someone solid will come along.

Doubt that. You end up with George Bush without doing that, so you might as well be true to yourself and work on the total betterment in the long run.

Sure, I don't like to wait, I'd do now at least some things to hurry that.

Originally posted by Robtard
You don't have to share my opinion, but I do feel that "electability" should be a consideration when choosing who you support, that is also my "right as a voter." Supporting a candidate who can't win, is essentially throwing out your vote. Like I said, I'd rather have a guy in office that shares some of my views and will accomplished some of what I want, than a guy who shares all my views, yet won't be able to accomplish anything for me.

As far as your "dishonesty, betraying etc. etc. etc." I never said "vote for a guy that you didn't want to vote for", now did I.

*kicks soapbox from under your foolish feet*

It's putting lipstick on a pig, and that is the American way of life. The primary process in this country began a full year earlier than I recall it beginning in the past. (This is most likely to distract people from the disaster of the closing days of the Bush administration, which is a benefit of all elections. The fact that it started a year earlier is simply an extention of the distraction process.)

We have over a dozen candidates that are running in a national election, not a state primary, but a national election (which is actually fine, I've never understood why Iowa was a such an important and telling demographic...but I guess you have to start somewhere.) and they're all putting lipstick on the pig. People in this country are less concerned with getting candidates that will effect change for the better, than they are with walking into their office on the monday after the election and telling people their guy won. It's truly on the same level for most people as the super bowl. This is why people are truly ignorant enough to split their ideals down a single party line. This is why a third or fourth party is such a joke to most people. It's the democrats v the republicans, it's the christians v. the godless sodomites, it's the American way v. Islamo-fascism, it's the Giants v. the Panthers, it's US v. THEM!

How the hell does anyone expect to face reality when we're all living in the "American Dream" every 2 to 4 years?

And Bardock, the stance I'll take is in the middle of yours and Robtard's. Ron Paul is getting huge numbers in donations and support, but he's not given much play by people because what he wants to do is practically an impossibility. He can't cut those programs and get rid of those departments. You can't dismantle the government with out teh help of that government, and his support isn't there. Unless, he'd like to become another Bush, who totally ignores the mandates passed by the congress (aka the "voice of the people" in government) But, sadly Paul doesn't have the political muscle that the Bush family does...or even the Clinton's...to arbitrarily do as he wishes. The kind of things he says he'll do are wonderful, but if you want to see a president with a term shorter that William Henry Harrison, you'd be looking for one that wants to rock the boat in a legitimate manner. And that's what Paul wants to do.

I'm voting Democrat because that is how Gay people vote 🙂

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I'm voting Democrat because that is how Gay people vote 🙂

That is not only stupid, but wrong. 😄

Originally posted by Devil King

And Bardock, the stance I'll take is in the middle of yours and Robtard's. Ron Paul is getting huge numbers in donations and support, but he's not given much play by people because what he wants to do is practically an impossibility. He can't cut those programs and get rid of those departments. You can't dismantle the government with out teh help of that government, and his support isn't there. Unless, he'd like to become another Bush, who totally ignores the mandates passed by the congress (aka the "voice of the people" in government) But, sadly Paul doesn't have the political muscle that the Bush family does...or even the Clinton's...to arbitrarily do as he wishes. The kind of things he says he'll do are wonderful, but if you want to see a president with a term shorter that William Henry Harrison, you'd be looking for one that wants to rock the boat in a legitimate manner. And that's what Paul wants to do.