Best Presidential Candidate, Republicans

A few days ago we posted a story for you to discuss the best presidential candidates for Super Tuesday, but I figured it would be an interesting idea to try that again, but split the discussion into 2 halves. This is the Republican half — please only discuss the Republican candidates in this story. Huckabee, McCain, and Romney only.

Comments

Those candidates are lame

[namulator]

What is up with that?... Come on people. Ron Paul!! He needs more attention. Which candidate wants to get rid of the IRS? Which candidate wants to bring the troops back ASAP? Which candidate wants to abolish the federal reserve (which is neither federal, nor reserve)? Who wants to restore the republic, and the constitution? Who wants to stop policing the world? Come on, there is really only one good candidate... And that is RON PAUL!! Vote for McCain, and you'll probably be in another new war within the year. I think that was very low to limit the discussion of candidates. What happened to freedom of speech, expression, and the PEOPLE choosing their president?

Re:Those candidates are lame

[dave420]

Which candidate will never, ever be elected? Ron Paul. Discussion of this lost candidate is pointless.

Ron Paul is an idiot

[cowwoc2001]

I'll bite, since you're obviously waiting for this...

The only people voting for Ron Paul are internet bots. His rating is so low it could actually be caused by the polling margin of error. The guy is a joke and his platform is a joke. I doubt he could garner more votes even running as a Democrat (which is what he should have done).

As for all the so-called people voting for Ron Paul: his ratings show how marginalized your views are. If you'd spend half the time and money you did on Ron Paul on Human Rights issues in the middle-east you would have actually made more of a difference in the world. Everyone is tripping over themselves trying to show they hate their government more than everyone else (apparently it's the "in" thing to do nowadays), and not just in the US. Meanwhile billions of women are being oppressed in the Islamic world and millions of them are being raped and killed in Darfur. What is being done about it? Nothing. Why? Because it's easier to criticize a government that won't bash your skull in then do the *real* work of criticizing middle-eastern dictatorships and make a difference where it counts. Anti-war activists say they're against war but their actions actually ensure that wars will get worse in the future. Yesterday they were protecting Saddam Hussein's right to torture his people. Today they are protecting Iran's right to wipe out Israel using nuclear weapons. Who knows what wonderful policy they'll dream up of tomorrow :) I'm not necessarily advocating a gun-ho approach to the world, but I note with cynicism that no leftist group has tried toppling these governments before the US did. Like I said, it's much easier for them to criticize governments that won't bash their skulls in.

In 2003, when Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi was arrested, raped and then beaten to death in Iran where was the public outcry? How can you spend a week making noise about Zahra Kazemi and *years* making noise about the US government? That's not advocating Human Rights!

Oooh, so much karma for me to burn...

[halivar]

Well, as one of those right-wing neo-con theocrats, I would like to thank you for supporting a candidate (RON PAUL!!!1!!1!!one!!!) that believes in creationism, wants a constitutional ban on abortions, believes in prayer in schools, opposes gay marriage (or anything gay, for that matter), and wants to kick all the non-Americans out of the country.

Do you really know who you're voting for? I mean, not that I mind: I'm a Republican, so I can live with all of the above, even if some of them have strong kook-factor. I'm afraid, though, that most Ronulans are ignorant of any of his positions other than the war in Iraq, or you'd think twice about voting for him.

Re:Oooh, so much karma for me to burn...

[Pumpkin Tuna]

Hmm, Okay. So according to you, these are the "benefits" I would get from a Ron Paul non-administration. Points 1 and 3 - With no national standards of education at all, my local "town" would get to decide what teachers can and can't teach to everyone. Well, here's a clue buddy, Every teacher in my district would have to ditch everything prior to the enlightenment and start teaching young-earth creationism if Ron Paul gets his way. The sad truth is that a lot of "towns" are run by very small-minded people. If you consider public education "theft," maybe you better look around a little bit and see how many fine people who make your world work every day are the products of a public education system that keeps both majority wishes and minority rights in balance. I think you should have to pay up for the benefits of such a system even if you don't have a kid in school. I'm also happy to pay for such schools. They allow me to go about my life safe in the knowledge that most of the people around me weren't brought up in the Christian version of a Pakistani madrassa. Point 2 - You may not condem abortion as murder, but plenty of your co-religionist would be happy to do it for you and, while they at it, get out the flaming torches and pitchforks for anybody who doesn't agree. Once again, strictly local control often tramples on the rights of individuals. Ron Paul would gleefully let that happen. Point 4 - I don't have too much of a problem with this, except there are some cases where the world would have to honor the marriage contract of two people, such as hospital visitation rights, adoption, insurance, etc. You can't just seperate marriage and government that easily. Pont 5 - Your concern and care for those who need help are laudable and a good example for other who call themselves Christian. But even if everybody started acting like this I'm not sure it would work. Sometimes we need bigger solutions that can help large groups of people improve their own condition. As to immigration, the problem is not immigrants coming here looking for a handout. They are coming here looking for work. We are hiring them because we need the labor, but we aren't willing to adapt our immigration policies to match reality. I'm afraid a bigger problem is that too many Americans are using disdain for "lawbreaking illegals" as a mask for their fear of brown people who speak a funny language. I honestly don't know enough about Ron Paul to say which way he falls on this.

Paul "running away" with the nomination?

[DesScorp]

"The economic collapse we are now experiencing makes the likelyhood of Paul running away with the Republican nomination increasingly likely as spring turns to summer."

If you actually think Ron Paul is going to "run away" with the GOP nomination, I'd say the greater liklihood is you losing your damn mind. Ron Paul will never get more than 10 percent of the GOP vote, and that's on his best day. He's been averaging more like 5 percent. He's running second place in a couple of small states, but that's it. Half of his positions contradict the GOP platform. Even in an election with many surprises, I'll guarantee that Ron Paul won't win Jack Shit. He may go on to run as a Libertarian Party candidate (which is where he belongs anyway), but he'll never even get a sniff of the GOP nomination, no matter what your fantasy is.

Re:Ron Paul?

[halivar]

Don't forget about CowboyNeal: I heard he's one of the Elders of Zion.

Re:Ron Paul?

[Fex303]

He's not convinced of evolution. So what? ... He's not convinced of global warming? So what?

That strongly suggests to me that he's incapable of basic reasoning. That's what. (I'm going to leave the whole pro-life thing off that list to avoid the inevitable flamewar.)

I would like to see a well reasoned argument as to why he is a kook.

He's not convinced of evolution. Done. I'm aware that many other Republicans aren't convinced of evolution. That makes them kooks in my book.

A lot of the other stuff makes sense if you're a libertarian. But at the end of the day I can't trust someone who views homosexuals as an abomination and who can't accept evidence of global warming with the White House. (Note: It doesn't actually matter since I don't get to vote, just pay taxes.) Some of his policies are pretty good, but he doesn't actually get to make all that many as president and his moral compass seems to be stuck in the 1950's. That's very bad in my opinion.

Re:Um, what?

[C18H21NO3]

Ah, you didn't answer my question.

You don't know, thanks.

"If that's not momentum, what is?"

It's not momentum. Your guy has ZERO chance.

And, if the polls are inaccurate, how can you use them to judge an increase in "momentum"?

You can't. Have a nice day.