Vote: Gingrich or Romney

If just between the two, I would vote for Newt. All I care about is who can beat Ubama, I wouldn't care if that was a midget on stilts...but I think Newt can make him pay more than Mitt.

 

The youth vote, ages 18-29 represented only 9% of the total voters of SC. In that group, Paul edged Newt by 31% to 28%. In ALL other age groups, Paul lost.

Votes for Paul are simply wasted votes. IF the Paul fans get behind the eventual Republican candidate, fine. But Paul is not going to be a factor.

 

He will be if he runs third party. He will not say he will not do that.

 

Paul is 76. He will stay in the Republican primaries until continued losses exhaust his body and his supporters.. He will not have the energy to run a third party campaign. Retirement is Paul's future, not politics.

 

In all honesty .... who among politicians can throw the first stone when it comes to matters of fidelity?

Some politicians may be inconstant in their affections, that doesn't make them bad rulers.

 

I do not trust him he will not say no I will not run third party. He ran libertarian 1988. He should have stayed there and not pretend to be GOP when he is libertarian.

 

My vote goes to Ron Paul. I don't care if he's the nominee or not. Whatever that does (along with all those that will do the same), let the cookie crumble as it may.

Y'all do realize that, as election day approaches, we'll have a $16 Trillion debt with $17 Trillion on the horizon. Now tell me which one of these ass-clowns (Romney or Gingrich) will do anything serious about that. Go ahead..find where either one of these guys say they will balance the budget. Even Ron Paul's proposal of cutting $1 trillion from the budget the first year, as radical as that is, still leaves a deficit. That's how bad things are.

We have been insulated from the debt burden somewhat due to our having the world's reserve currency. That only gets us so far, though, and soon we will be severely downgraded and then the inflation hits in a serious way. If you think we have problems now, wait til that happens. NOTHING trumps this issue and only one candidate seriously addresses it.

A vote for anybody other than RP is a vote for America's demise.

 

We don't have rulers in the US.

 

http://m.examiner.com/conservative-...-wins-south-carolina-paul-campaign-celebrates

If Paul is not a factor, then only Romney can be the nominee. I refuse to vote for obama lite. In the article above, you see Newt and Santorum are truely UNELECTIBLE for nomination. They will not be on many primaries and can't get enough delegates to win. So, if you don't want to vote Romney, ONLY Paul is the choice to win.

 

And burning up in a Volt is smart? Everybody wants it better and to be off oil. Problem is our science has not caught up with practicality yet...Hell I just had to replace two of their ten year Light bulbs,,had them three months...

They just aint there yet Doc,,and please do not tell me they just want to keep us in oil and that it's all one big Plot....Some plot, thousands of stupid Wind Mills taking up valuable space.

 

You present an opinion from a blog as a fact? Ridiculous in the extreme.

Shall I quote a previous post of mine or one I like as FACT too?

These are provable FACTS:

Paul is older than the oldest president ever elected or reelected.
Paul is running for president for the 3 time.
No one has ever been elected running for the 3rd or more times.
The youth vote is traditionally NOT a strong vote.
The youth vote did not elect obama, the Independent vote and an unusually strong minority turnout did.

Those are FACTS.

They are what influences my opinion that Paul is not and will not be a factor. An additional influence is that Paul is just a bit older than I am. I have a much better understanding of how a body feels at our age.
The other influence of my opinion is that I see no concrete accomplishments in Paul's 36 years in politics. He has voted his conscience, as ALL POLITICIANS claim they do. But Paul has sponsored more bills than the average Congressman. He has NEVER got one of his major issue bills passed into law. Over 700 attempts, not a single passage of a major issue. All he has got passed has been a little pork for his home district that all Congressmen give to each other.

It is my OPINION that intelligent people know that fact and will discount Paul as a serious candidate because of his record.

 

I didn't vote because I don't like either of them. However, between the two Gingrich stands out better simply because he was the last Speaker of the House to balance a budget AND he kicks but in debates.

After all, what does Romney have to run on? Anyone?

 

Let's not get bogged down on semantics.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: INSULT >>>

 

What does that have to do with electing him? He is still in great physical condition and healthier than Newt.

So what? There has never been such a greater need for his policies and economic outlook.

Goes back to before. And another "first" was having the first black president elected not to long ago.

You said the youth vote is 9%? How much did Obama beat McCain by? How much would Obama win if he didn't have the youth vote? Cause the youth is NOT going to vote for Romney.

There were many factors and all I was saying that the pathetic meme of "voting for Ron is a vote for Obama" is ridiculous. The youth voting for Ron takes votes from Obama MORE than from the GOP. Not to mention the independents also vote more for Ron than Romney, again, taking away from Obama. So plead with Ron to run 3rd party, most of the votes you are afraid he is going to get will be taking away from Obama. That ignorant minority voters are not that enthused to vote for Obama again either.

You missed one when you seemingly dismissed the blog,

Do you see the MATHEMATICALLY word in there? Newt NOR Santorum can win the nomination. This isn't an opinion, it is a FACT backed up with numbers.

Great, you can have your opinion, but the FACT is, Newt can't get the nomination.

As far as the accomplishments opinion, you would feel better if he had broken his principles and voted against the constitution once or twice just to get things "done"? Sorry, but I am not rooting for the nun that goes into the bordello to preach to start servicing men for money just to "get along". Compromise is why we are in this mess to begin with.

You really think it is the "intelligent" people that are voting for the big government progressives of the GOP side and thinking they are conservatives? Goebbels would be proud, Newt is really proving his theory of "say a lie enough times, and people will start to believe it".

 

To be honest, they never had a balanced budget.

But to be fair, they were working towards it till the last year Clinton was in office when it shot up.

 

Ok, but it is still more than Romney can say or come close to. In addition, I secretively want to see a debate between Gingrich and Obama. Just the thought to fhat beedy eyed monster facing off in a debate against Obama and ripping him limb from limb would prove to be entertaining. It would be like Dick Cheney facing off in a debate. Although no one can stand his guts, including me, he makes the other guy look like a fool.

 

Excellent points, Dan. Ron Paul's another 'tell 'em what they want to hear' politician -- he just happens to have some good ideas among the BS. Like you said, he's had decades to make his mark on DC. If he couldn't do it then, why do some folks think he can do it now?

 

He isn't close to that? He has been saying the same thing for over 30 years. He hasn't flipped on a single stance or vote he has made in the house. This is a total lie from you and can't really believe you think that Ron is "pandering" to anyone.

 

But that integrity is what the American voter finds so appaling. Americans have proven again and again, whoever is good in with the ladies is electable? I just wonder if Caine is kicking himself for dropping out.

 

Your link intentionally manipulates words and figures to make a lie seem true. your link lies.

I'm a very conservative Independent. I did NOT vote for Clinton either time. If he was running today, I might consider him the best choice, but I WILL vote for whomever the Republican candidate turns out to be.

Now to the Clinton/Gingrich balanced budget. They DID have a balanced budget. They budgeted to spend a specified amount, which they did and Federal revenues exceeded that budgeted expenditure. Giving them a BUDGET SURPLUS. All told there were $559 billion in budget surpluses in those years. So that is $559 billion plus interest that will never be added to the national debt.

What the Clinton/Gingrich budget never did was REDUCE the national debt, which is all previous deficits plus interest for the history of the nation.

So while the national debt did not go down, it only went up by the interest of the previous debt, MINUS the amount of surplus of the spending/revenue budget.

Today the national debt is being increased by $1,298.7 TRILLION [FY 2011] plus the interest on the existing national debt. That adds up to well over $1.6 trillion added to the national debt each year under Democrat/obama control. Compare that to the national debt not increasing even $150 billion in any year of the Clinton/Gingrich balanced BUDGETS. In FY 2011 the national debt increased 12 times more than it did with the Clinton/Gingrich budgets, their HIGHEST increases.

 

Sorry, I will correct myself, he has flipped flopped on DADT, Global warming, and Ronald Reagan. But that is stances of issues, not a change in his voting record. He didn't vote for federal government cap and trade. He didn't vote to keep DADT then change, he voted to repeal the DADT rule.

 

Yes, the budget to (blah blah blah)...

Sure, they planned to spend money and kept to how much the were going to spend according to the revenues. But then of corse chose to IGNORE other expenses as if they really didn't happen. So sure, balanced budget is what I have too, as long as I don't count the money I spend at McDs.

OH, I am sorry, I didn't know interest wasn't part of the budget. Silly me, I thought how we ALL set up our budget was to pay off what we OWE during a certain time frame, not just ignoring a certain portion to that way we can say and "manipulate" the wording of a BALANCE BUDGET.

 

Sounds like you think saying the same thing for over 30 years is a GOOD thing?

Not to me... I'm looking for somebody with a proven track record this time around. Had enough of fancy talkers.

 

Santorum is my absolute favorite. Newt comes in second just because I believe he is more conservative and definitely intelligent than Mitt. He could run circles around obama.

 

So what "proven track record" are you looking for? The one that will change what they believe in depending on what they think will get them elected even if they don't follow through on what they promised? Or the one that has the proven track record of basing ALL of their votes according to what the constitution says? Or the one that has a proven track record of being a flip flopper?

Yes, saying the same thing for the past 30 years is a great thing, cause it is all based on the constitution, that document that hasn't changed in 30 years.