Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Rufus_1611, Mar 1, 2007.
Who would you vote for if the election were held today?
No one that has declared interests me at all.
I have to agree with that. Only Ron Paul would come close, maybe Sam Brownback. I really do not know much about him. Either of those have no chance at the nomination.
In order to win the GOP nomination Ron Paul will have to obtain a majority of the delegates to the nominating convention. The only way he can do that is if enough people who cherish our liberties vote for him in the GOP primaries and caucuses. It's the only way that he can win.
I'd vote for Ron Paul.
I voted for Ron Paul in the poll, but I also like Chuck Hagel. If neither of these are the GOP nominee, I would almost prefer any of the Democrats. The Republicans have proven themselves to be the war party and fiscally reckless party.
Out of that list, Huckabee.
I'm tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils." In 2008, I will vote for the candidate who shows the most practical, reasonable, realistic, historical knowledge of the Middle East, US interests there, and has a workable plan for removing our troops and getting back to a real war on terror, instead of looking for a way to help rich friends profiteer for bailing him out of business failures. Foreign policy and national security will be my highest priority, and seeing the miserable failure that the Republican party has been in this regard, it looks like I'll either vote third party to satisfy my conviction, or Democrat to get the job done.
Brother James Reed,
Did you really vote for Kinky Friedman? He is anti-christ.
Ron Paul has a lot of libertarian baggage. For example, it is said that he is against capital punishment entirely. Also, he would allow individual states to continue abortion. Also, he would allow individual states to legalize same-sex marriage, as if Canada, Spain, Holland, and Belgium were not enough places in the world for same-sex marriage.
Ron Paul does not support the GOP plank on pro-life because he does not believe that the Declaration of Independence gave the federal government power to protect life. Here is part of what the GOP platform of 2004 said on this issue:
Promoting a Culture of Life
As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Our goal is to ensure that women with problem pregnancies have the kind of support, material and otherwise, they need for themselves and for their babies, not to be punitive towards those for whose difficult situation we have only compassion. We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption. We join the President in supporting crisis pregnancy programs and parental notification laws. And we applaud President Bush for allowing states to extend health care coverage to unborn children.
We praise the President for his bold leadership in defense of life. We praise him for signing the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This important legislation ensures that every infant born alive – including an infant who survives an abortion procedure – is considered a person under federal law.
I look for Ron Paul to be given the Constitution Party nomination.
"The very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record.
Paul scores 0% by NARAL on pro-choice voting record
For over thirty years, NARAL Pro-Choice America has been the political arm of the pro-choice movement and a strong advocate of reproductive freedom and choice. NARAL Pro-Choice America's mission is to protect and preserve the right to choose while promoting policies and programs that improve women's health and make abortion less necessary. NARAL Pro-Choice America works to educate Americans and officeholders about reproductive rights and health issues and elect pro-choice candidates at all levels of government. The NARAL ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: NARAL website 03n-NARAL on Dec 31, 2003
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research.
To provide for human embryonic stem cell research. A YES vote would:
Call for stem cells to be taken from human embryos that were donated from in vitro fertilization clinics
Require that before the embryos are donated, that it be established that they were created for fertility treatment and in excess of clinical need and otherwise would be discarded
Stipulate that those donating the embryos give written consent and do not receive any compensation for the donation.
Reference: Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act; Bill HR 810 ; vote number 2005-204 on May 24, 2005
Ken, no one has bothered to footnote that remark by Reagan, who was a Republican, so I assume that since no context is given and the word is printed with a lower-case letter that the remark is just a general remark. I hardly think that Reagan was suggesting that we vote for Ron Paul, the possible Constitution Party nominee, because Ron Paul does not believe that the federal government has the right to end abortion and Reagan--the real Ron--wanted the federal government to end abortion in accord with the Declaration of Independence, which states that God gave us right and the government is obligated to protect life.
REAGAN: "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path."
Yeah, libertarianism is a political philosophy. You need to learn to distinguish between the use of the terms Libertarian Party and libertarian. They are not the same thing. All libertarians are not members of the Libertarian Party(Ronald Reagan wasn't) or even vote for Libertarian Party candidates.
Mike Huckabee might decide to run for the U.S. Senate instead of for president:
I think we have a projected winner, still waiting for the Florida results.
I sure did. And, if given the same choices next time around, I'd vote for him again.
What many folks outside the state do not understand is that Texas has a governorship with very limited powers. There is, in fact, more legislative shaping power in the hands of the Lt. Governor. Our Governor does not have the power to allow gay marriage, repeal the death penalty, or even pardon/commute a death row inmate. He does, however, have the power to call up the Texas Guard and put them on the border to stop illegals from coming in. Kinky promised to do just that, and that is the main reason I voted for him. He is also against the largest land-grab in history via the Trans Texas Corridor, which our current Governor supports, and which cost him most of the votes in the last election.
All in all, given the power our Governor is able to wield, and the stances all of the candidates took on issues they could actually affect, Kinky Friedman was the best choice.
I also happen to believe that he was the only truly honest person running in the election.
Kinky also supports bringing prayer back in public schools, though he wouldn't have had any real power to do that.
I would take Kinky over Perry anyday of the week. Perry is a liberal who won with only 40% of the vote and has an appoval rating on par with President Bush, who was btw a much better Governor.
Well, why doesn't Kinky Friedman run for president?
The best thing about Fred Thompson is only that he's not Rudy Giuliani:
No, no and no. Somewhat better:
Can't make that mistake. But the worst of the worst:
:sleep: Now, your the one who needs to keep his mouth shut! :laugh:
Fred Thompson/ Jeb Bush:thumbs: