# Which GOP candidate do you prefer?



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

If you do not know please select "I don't know" to prevent skewed the results.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Right now, I can't answer - there are different things I like about each candidate.


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

I have done a lot of research and have decided that I agree with nearly everything Ron Paul stands for.


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

How about Colin Powell? Perhaps someone should draft him.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

I prefer none of them.


----------



## huh (Mar 19, 2007)

Jimmy McMillan

:teeth


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

Newt Gingrich. My father is pretty smart and "dead-on" when it comes to politics so I will go with the one he says is the best out of this election's candidates.

I wish Ron Paul had a better chance of winning. If he had scaled down his ideas earlier in the campaign, he might actually have had a shot with the voters at large. He has some good ideas at the base of his campaign, he just needed to be a little less eccentric and extreme. :yes


----------



## afraid2goinpublic (Nov 8, 2011)

*Rick Perry, unless we can get Clinton to come back *


----------



## luceo (Jan 29, 2011)

Neither Clinton were ever in the GOP...

Also, I'd choose none of them, but it doesn't really matter seeing as I'm on the other side of the world.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

luceo said:


> Neither Clinton were ever in the GOP...
> 
> Also, I'd choose none of them, but it doesn't really matter seeing as I'm on the other side of the world.


I wish more people in this part of the world thought the same.

It affects the entire world when someone is elected to office. I don't think the U.S. will ever be forgiven by the rest of the world for eight years of George W. Bush.

:no


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

CourtneyB said:


> Newt Gingrich. My father is pretty smart and "dead-on" when it comes to politics so I will go with the one he says is the best out of this election's candidates.
> 
> I wish Ron Paul had a better chance of winning. If he had scaled down his ideas earlier in the campaign, he might actually have had a shot with the voters at large. He has some good ideas at the base of his campaign, he just needed to be a little less eccentric and extreme. :yes


What about what you think? Your dad has his opinions, but what about your opinions? Would you ever go against what he thinks?


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Ron Paul. Even in the rare occurrence that I don't agree with him, I deeply respect where he's coming from. Gary Johnson would have made a great president as well, but his total lack of charisma doomed him. I wish Thaddeus McCotter would have stayed in the race a bit longer; if, for nothing else, entertainment value. He's a really funny guy, with a Bob Newhart-esque sense of humor.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

*Ron Paul*


----------



## scarpia (Nov 23, 2009)

Buddy Roemer. He IS running even though no one knows it because they won;t let him in on the debates.


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

Newt Gingrich - He's probably the brightest out of all of them.


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> I wish more people in this part of the world thought the same.
> 
> It affects the entire world when someone is elected to office. I don't think the U.S. will ever be forgiven by the rest of the world for eight years of George W. Bush.
> 
> :no


What did Bush do wrong? I know he wasn't the best president but neither is Obama.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

Uranium said:


> What did Bush do wrong?


:no

You MUST be kidding.


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> :no
> 
> You MUST be kidding.


No, I'm not. I was too young at the time to really pay attention and I just want to know why everyone hates him. He couldn't have been that bad, he got two terms.


----------



## luceo (Jan 29, 2011)

I'm sure someone will chip in with a more comprehensive answer, but those two wars he started were a pretty big deal.


----------



## bsd3355 (Nov 30, 2005)

I'll admit I haven't done my homework on all the candidates but I kinda diggin' Mr. Paul.

I also probably won't vote because I never care enough and because I don't care I don't research enough. Call me a waste of human potential but I haven't felt the need yet. It'll come one day _IF_ I am really in opposition with certain aspects. I'm a horrible person, I know.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Ron Paul is the only one that would go against what the handlers in the GOP want. It would be interesting to see right-wing talk radio decry him as a RINO on a bunch of issues...

He still doesn't cut enough of the wasteful spending on some big programs, and lets the states have too many rights that it would create a mess. His energy policy is a joke. I would be able to sue every chemical and power company to the west of me for polluting my air. I could sue my neighbors for having cars that pollute...

But at least he is getting a fair shake in the media now.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

luceo said:


> I'm sure someone will chip in with a more comprehensive answer, but those two wars he started were a pretty big deal.


For me it's just too overwhelming. I don't even know where to begin with an answer to that question. More like, what DIDN'T he do wrong, to which the answer is almost nothing.


----------



## northstar1991 (Oct 4, 2011)

I'm not crazy about any of them.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

northstar1991 said:


> I'm not crazy about any of them.


I'm shocked at how many people here are basically saying they're Republicans. It's quite shocking. Where I'm from, it's really unacceptable to be a Republican...so I'm not really used to it.


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)

Its OK...you're from Mass. funny how Mitt Romney is also representing Mass. too

Anyways, whoever president we elect whether from GOP or the Dems, the world is gonna hate us anyway. Thanks to the combined efforts of Obama, Congress, and Bush. Only time the world actually liked us was when Clinton was around.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

If it were my choice, Mitt Romney never would have been elected to office. Blecch. What a ****er.


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

How about an "Anybody but Obama" option?


The only one who has a shot at beating Obama is Mitt Romney. He has a very impressive resume. We need someone with business experience in the White House who can turn this economy around.

So, I vote for Romney.


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> I'm shocked at how many people here are basically saying they're Republicans. It's quite shocking. Where I'm from, it's really unacceptable to be a Republican...so I'm not really used to it.


Really??? Massachusetts??? I'm shocked! :no


----------



## kanra (Nov 27, 2011)

Uranium said:


> loquaciousintrovert said:
> 
> 
> > :no
> ...


 Just look up Bush quotes on google. Why he had 2 terms: Idiots, I guess. don't wanna be an American idiot don't want a nation under the new media --

Anyway. Good presidents shouldn't call Italian political figures "amigos" or wrongly accuse countries of having nucular weapons, or give backrubs to women they aren't familiar with.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

Don't wanna be an american idiot, one nation controlled by the media. 

plenty of american idiots are why Bush had two terms.


----------



## ohgodits2014 (Mar 18, 2011)

I feel like I should at least know who those people are, but I just don't care about the upcoming election one way or another.

Guess I'm getting to _that _age.


----------



## trendyfool (Apr 11, 2010)

There should be another option on this poll: "None of the above."


----------



## hoddesdon (Jul 28, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> I'm shocked at how many people here are basically saying they're Republicans. It's quite shocking. Where I'm from, it's really unacceptable to be a Republican...so I'm not really used to it.


 The Republican presidential candidate could be the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts.


----------



## Dioque (Dec 3, 2011)

Jon Huntsman.


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

hoddesdon said:


> The Republican presidential candidate could be the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts.


Exactly. Ironic, isn't it? :blank


----------



## Cletis (Oct 10, 2011)

Dioque said:


> Jon Huntsman.


Interesting. I see Huntsman is getting a lot of love on here. Can anyone tell me why? :sus


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)

erasercrumbs said:


> Gary Johnson would have made a great president as well, but his total lack of charisma doomed him.


I'd never heard of him until I stumbled upon this article:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/187943-gop-presidential-hopeful-reaches-out-to-pagans

Seems like a gutsy and progressive guy. It's too bad his campaign never gained momentum.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

hoddesdon said:


> The Republican presidential candidate could be the former Republican Governor of Massachusetts.


Yeah, it's really too bad he was the governor of MA. Sucks. And a lot of people here *hated* him, believe me.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

trendyfool said:


> There should be another option on this poll: "None of the above."


This.


----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

Uranium said:


> No, I'm not. I was too young at the time to really pay attention and I just want to know why everyone hates him. He couldn't have been that bad, he got two terms.





luceo said:


> I'm sure someone will chip in with a more comprehensive answer, but those two wars he started were a pretty big deal.


We didn't just go into these places for no reason.

IRAQ
1990 - Saddam's troops go into Kuwait saying it is his country. The Kuwaitis don't like that, but as a small country, they could not defend themselves. Jan 1991, we fight the Iraqis to get them out of Kuwait....and succeeded. They had sanctions put on them for what they did - they did not want to follow them....even after Clinton attacked the city in 1998, Saddam still did not want to do anything. Suspicion about what they were doing grew....were they bringing in weapons to try and attack again? The whole WMD thing came up as the Kurdish people in northern Iraq were either being forced out of Iraq into Turkey, or whatnot.

2002-2003, the US tried to go to the UN (Colin Powell's speech) saying that there was something going on and that Saddam was undermining the sanctions imposed against him, using things to his advantage. We went in to get Saddam. That was when we went in there.
People say that there were no WMDs, but there's a whole lot of open sand land out there that could have held something. There is still no mention of oil, contrary to what has been said before.

AFGHANISTAN
2001 - We went there to find Osama bin Laden in a seemingly lawless area with tribes. The government could only do so much to help; the rest was on the tribes. We got bin Laden after years of searching and trying to fight back groups that were supporting al-Qaeda in the process. It took ten years, but some conflicts are like that - Vietnam was a long process; both World Wars were long. It happens. Now, we are trying to figure out what Pakistan knew as they tried to help us under Musharraf - that support was removed when he was removed from power.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

:no


----------



## Neptunus (Oct 29, 2007)




----------



## millenniumman75 (Feb 4, 2005)

:eyes


----------



## Syndacus (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

just wanted to say i'm grateful to live in a nation whose right-wingers aren't quite this vile and disingenuous:


----------



## VagueResemblance (Apr 17, 2010)

Mitt Romney supports that tax holiday scheme for businesses with enormous overseas profits. This would create jobs, he says. This has been done before and did not create jobs, so Mitt Romney is either stupid or willfully ignorant because the people to profit from the scheme are paying for his campaign.

Newt Gingrich is a warhawk pushing for action against Iran, supporting limitations on the First Amendment in the name of the War on Terror, and would love to see Singapore-style tactics in the War on Drugs, including executions. 

Rick Santorum believes consenting adults do not have the right to engage in sex acts they enjoy in the privacy of their bedroom. There's no right to privacy spelled out in the Constitution, after all.

Could go through every one but I've got a headache. None are acceptable to me. NONE. The lineup is disgusting - this is the best the republicans can do? really?


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> For me it's just too overwhelming. I don't even know where to begin with an answer to that question. More like, what DIDN'T he do wrong, to which the answer is almost nothing.


We got attacked, we retaliated. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> Don't wanna be an american idiot, one nation controlled by the media.
> 
> plenty of american idiots are why Bush had two terms.


I can also say plenty of American idiots are why Obama is in office right now.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

fingertips said:


> just wanted to say i'm grateful to live in a nation whose right-wingers aren't quite this vile and disingenuous:


It honestly does make me want to leave this country. That man is a vile, disgusting piece of ****.


----------



## loquaciousintrovert (May 23, 2011)

Uranium said:


> We got attacked, we retaliated. What's wrong with that?


Well, it's pretty clear you weren't genuinely asking about Bush. You made up your mind that he was great and were just being rhetorical.

What the **** do you mean we got attacked? Do you mean 9/11? So a group of extremists committing a horrible act means it's okay to invade countries and kill innocent people.

And one attack that killed a very small number of people out of the entire U.S. population is REALLY comparable to the hundreds of thousands that the U.S. has killed in those two countries.

Good luck with that way of thinking.


----------



## Aphexfan (Jan 12, 2011)

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are the only two sane canditates. Watching the GOP is like watching a circus full of psychopaths, but one of these psychopaths might actually be running this country which is terrifying (not that obama is really that much better at running things then would any of these other people)


----------



## Uranium (Jun 14, 2011)

loquaciousintrovert said:


> Well, it's pretty clear you weren't genuinely asking about Bush. You made up your mind that he was great and were just being rhetorical.
> 
> What the **** do you mean we got attacked? Do you mean 9/11? So a group of extremists committing a horrible act means it's okay to invade countries and kill innocent people.


Yes


----------



## woot (Aug 7, 2009)

Newt


----------



## IcedOver (Feb 26, 2007)

I wish I could say Chris Christie, but unfortunately he's not running. Of the current field, I like Jon Huntsman. He's the most personally likeable and has executive as well as foreign policy experience. I guess he's considered kind of boring, and that's why he's failed to catch on despite lots of work and the efforts of his cute daughters. Ron Paul's ideas of small government are somewhat appealing, and he might make a good VP, but he's a little too radical perhaps.

We need to find someone to take down Obuma, and one of these guys needs to get really serious about building a strategy to do it. Obuma is in campaign mode now, giving speeches nearly every day. Considering that's the only thing he knows how to do, and that he ran the most brilliant campaign of misdirection ever, he's become dangerous again despite being the worst president in modern U.S. history. What the Republican nominee, whether it's Romney or Gingrich, needs to do is make a super-appealing and exciting ticket, not just a safe one. The loser in the primaries needs to either agree to be the other's running mate, or the nominee must make entreaties to Christie, who hasn't ruled out a VP bid.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

Neptunus said:


> I'd never heard of him until I stumbled upon this article:
> 
> http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/187943-gop-presidential-hopeful-reaches-out-to-pagans
> 
> Seems like a gutsy and progressive guy. It's too bad his campaign never gained momentum.


What I like about Gary Johnson is that, as governor of New Mexico, he was more than willing to veto any spending bill he thought was superfluous (which happened to be a third of them!). During his time as governor, he vetoed more bills than all of the other governors in the country combined. Talk about chutzpah! He tackles every problem from a position of pragmatism, carefully weighing cost versus benefit. I'm not fond of politicians that go out on moral crusades--whichever side of the aisle they're on--so it's refreshing to hear Johnson discuss politics in unemotional, completely budgetary terms.


----------



## CourtneyB (Jul 31, 2010)

Uranium said:


> I can also say plenty of American idiots are why Obama is in office right now.


:yes and I admittedly was one of them.... :duck



fingertips said:


> just wanted to say i'm grateful to live in a nation whose right-wingers aren't quite this vile and disingenuous:


:doh Oh god, this ad was such a dumb idea. It might work for the audience demographic where he's airing it, but to the nationwide audience, this is like slitting his own throat.

I admit, one of the biggest thing I cannot stand about Newt is his anti-gay stance. But I will just have to bite the bullet on that issue.


----------



## phoenixwright (Jun 22, 2011)

Is Newt Gingrich expected to be the front runner? According to a recent poll, Gingrich got 38% and Romney 17%. That was back in Nov 30th. Things can change a lot in 10 days.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...election_2012_republican_presidential_primary

No one in the GOP race strikes me as presidential material. Though it's not like I have followed the primaries this term as much as I have back in 2007-2008 so I'm not terribly well-read on all the candidates. So many people hate Obama or are disappointed in Obama (because liberals automatically thought this guy was going to be some sort of messiah just because he's half-black and a great orator with great speech material and slogans) so who knows. Maybe Newt will get the presidential nod. I would rather see Obama in there (even though he hasn't been doing a good job) than these nutjobs from the GOP. I like Ron Paul. But he's too libertarian for me on the economy.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

phoenixwright said:


> I would rather see Obama in there (even though he hasn't been doing a good job) than these nutjobs from the GOP. I like Ron Paul. But he's too libertarian for me on the economy.


You're in Canada, how would you know how Obama is doing? He is doing fine, but things would be much better if a vocal 15-25% of the population didn't try and block everything.

Ron Paul has some good ideas on where to cut defense spending, the drug war, and education.


----------



## Lonelyguy (Nov 8, 2003)

fingertips said:


> just wanted to say i'm grateful to live in a nation whose right-wingers aren't quite this vile and disingenuous:


:afr If he got elected I think I'd leave the country. Politics and religion DO NOT belong together. 
Only one I have any respect for is Ron Paul, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at winning.


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Lonelyguy said:


> Only one I have any respect for is Ron Paul, but he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell at winning.


If people keep saying that then it won't happen. It is a junior high propaganda technique.

What would happen if the right-wing and main stream media kept going on about how Ron Paul is the best, that he has great ideas, that he can win. All the ducks would fall in line.


----------



## copper (Nov 10, 2003)

Classified said:


> If people keep saying that then it won't happen. It is a junior high propaganda technique.
> 
> What would happen if the right-wing and main stream media kept going on about how Ron Paul is the best, that he has great ideas, that he can win. All the ducks would fall in line.


They aren't going to allow anyone in their that goes against Isreal, calls for ending the Federal Reserve, end the wars, etc. JFK tried to get rid of the Federal Reserve by issuing an executive order. The mint was already in the process of printing bills without the Federal Reserve Note logo stamped on it when he got shot.


----------



## prudence (Jan 31, 2010)

Ron Paul hands down


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

And some people would still vote for this A-hole... Not because they disagree or agree, they just follow what seems more popular, whom the media reports more.


----------



## UltraShy (Nov 8, 2003)

Ron Paul

Odd how he's the top choice by far on a SAS, where libertarian ideas are regularly torn to ribbons.


----------



## Cub (Jul 9, 2011)

Don't they all pretty much oppose _basic human rights_ and want to divide the difference between a theocracy and democracy?

Where is the "None of these discriminatory *****es" option? lmao.

And no, leaving basic human rights to the state is not acceptable. Federal government is the one to apply that.


----------



## erasercrumbs (Dec 17, 2009)

UltraShy said:


> Ron Paul
> 
> Odd how he's the top choice by far on a SAS, where libertarian ideas are regularly torn to ribbons.


I can't speak for other Libertarians, but I, for one, am simply too meek to stand up for my ideals when they're being assaulted, even if I know in my heart they're right. I'm a...oh, what's the word...a _coward_, yeah, that's it!


----------



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

If it came down to Paul or Obama. It would actually be kinda torn. But the whole thing is a big circus. "It's a big club, and you aint in it" - George Carlin. I love me some George Carlin. He always get's me out of a bad mood.

Paul seems to be the most 'Government out of personal lives' (which I am for) and I'm no fan of the Fed. But there are many things he says that scare the hell out of me. All of the others are just clowns to me

It's just a big freak show. all the politicians are pretty much the same. Making all of these promises. Then when in office they go a completely different direction.


----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)




----------



## WTFnooooo (Mar 27, 2010)

Jcgrey said:


> If it came down to Paul or Obama. It would actually be kinda torn. But the whole thing is a big circus. "It's a big club, and you aint in it" - George Carlin. I love me some George Carlin. He always get's me out of a bad mood.
> 
> Paul seems to be the most 'Government out of personal lives' (which I am for) and I'm no fan of the Fed. But there are *many things he says that scare the hell out of me*. All of the others are just clowns to me
> 
> It's just a big freak show. all the politicians are pretty much the same. Making all of these promises. Then when in office they go a completely different direction.


Is it foreign policy? It seems to be what a lot of people are having an issue with.
Check this out


----------



## Jcgrey (Feb 5, 2011)

I agree with his views on foreign policy completely. I don't think we need to be spread out all over the world. I'd like to see defense spending cut dramatically.


----------



## identitycrisis (Sep 18, 2011)

I'll fully admit that I don't follow politics as much as I could/should. That said, everything I've heard from every one of these candidates makes me want to not vote at all. Really I don't think it matters. If Obama's in office, the Republicans will block on principle any possible positive progress he can make. If any of these guys are in office, the Democrats will block on principle any possible positive progress they could make. I don't think our society will get better until we are forced to make radical, fundamental changes in our politics and culture. The day that we as a country start to care more about how we are governed than we do about reality TV is the day I finally have confidence in politics.


----------



## regimes (Aug 24, 2011)

none of them, haha. in my opinion they're all crazy/inept for leading.


----------



## nycdude (Mar 20, 2010)

Easy, Ron Paul.


----------



## nycdude (Mar 20, 2010)

regimes said:


> none of them, haha. in my opinion they're all crazy/inept for leading.


Really? Ron Paul is great!


----------



## Nightlight (Jan 7, 2012)

Ron Paul.


----------

