Which of the remaining Republican candidates would be most damaging to America?

"Mittens" Romney?

Newt "Baby Face" Gingrich?

Rick "frothy anal sex concoction" Santorum?

Ron "Where am I?" Paul?


Which of these brilliantly dull men is most likely to hasten the demise of America through regressive policy?

 

I think it is Paul. He has some ideas that are so very radical. Santorum is next though, he seemingly wants to impose his religious beliefs (one way or the other).

 

Damaging to American prestige? Paul, without a doubt. With his intention to bring home the military, that would be seen in American eyes as a defeat although having them in over half of the world's countries, at gigantic expense and a drain on the economy, doesn't achieve much either.

 

Paul has some good ideas and I think he genuinely wants to combat the corruption in Washington. I think he also genuinely cares about what he says and isn't afraid to say it, which shows how much more character the man has than most politicians. But I don't agree with his foreign policy 100%. And that I fear would be most damaging to our country.

Santorum is a social conservative. I dont care for social conservatism because I think it clashes with the very core values of what conservatism actually is. I just can't take anyone seriously who argues for smaller government but is also in in favor of mandating certain social policies onto people.

Gingrich is just scum. His personal shortcomings aside, the man is a corrupt has been. He got pushed out of office by his own party. The same people who are in Congress now such as John Boehner were responsible for exiling Newt out of Washington. The man will say anything to attract the attention of people and votes. In this election he has been racebaiting and painting himself as a victim by playing into the anger of conservatives. His ideas he has also been promoting if he were president, are unrealistic and empty. The man has an ego bigger than anyone else I can imagine.

Romney is likely the best option. He hasn't cheated on his taxes. He hasn't fooled around with other women. He hasn't been accused of being secretly racist. But people view him as a greedy Wall Street type who cares more about the wealthy elite than the average American. And people also argue that he has flip flopped on many issues and will also say anything to get votes. This stuff may or may not be true. But If he is my choice I will probably vote for him. Because all know Ron Paul doesn't stand a chance of getting the nomination.

 

Probably Newt is the worst.

Santorum isn't much better.

Romney is... at this point I don't like him either... But he's the best of those 3.

Paul is out. He's got no chance.

 

Santorum is by far the worst candidate. Any social conservative who states that "the ultimate homeland security issue is making sure sodomites and homosexuals cannot marry each other" clearly has priority issues.

 

I say the ones that would allow Barrack "(*)(*)(*)(*) the constitution, i am a dictator" Obama to be reelected.

 

Which is...all of them?

 

No, actually Paul gathers more support from the people that came out in force to elect Obama in 08'. So Paul vs Obama gives advantage to Paul by a long shot.

 

Paul is my favorite amongst the four, but Paul by NO means has any type of advantage over Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_paul_vs_obama-1750.html

 

PinkSlip is by far the worst of the pathetic group. Voting for him means you approve of doing all you can to enhance the super rich, at the expense of everybody else, that you approve of multiple marriage partners (that's what Mormons believe remember), and flip flopping on every issue (depending on who the crowd you're speaking to is at the time) is a plus.

 

This one's the most damaging for the simple reason that he's the most likely to defeat President Obama.

 

I think the OP was asking which republican was most damaging to America.

 

Ending Obama's tenure would be highly damaging to America.

 

Ok...play your word games. Enjoy then.

 

They're all a step up from what we've currently got. But I'd say Romney would be the worst since he's most like Obama.

 

I think Romney will win but my choice has now changed to Rick. He is a true conservative whether one thinks it's only social. Do we really know any of their true political compasses?

I lost interest in Newt when he started attacking Romney. At least Rick is honest and has a decent track record. Paul would ruin America and take away our core values. I think he is a true Libertarian but he mostly attracts the progressives, you know, the ones who claim to smoke pot until their last breath. He looks too tired for me to take seriously.

 

Yes for Ron and Rick. Ron has always been the same and voted with the side of the constitution every time. Rick has come out and been honest and said he hates the TEA party small government movement because he thinks the government SHOULD be in your bedroom.

Track record of bigger government and corruption. Yep, decent alright.

You mean the core values of bombing 3rd world countries and increasing the debt to bankruptcy proportions? Not to mention the core value of invading your privacy and worring about what you are doing in the bed room or interfering with private business practices.

Ron is the one that will end this attack on the Catholic church by sticking by what the constitution says.

That is NOT a progressive. Do you even know what a progressive is? It is anyone that wants the government to have a bigger role in your life, like Rick Santorum, GW Bush, Obama, Newt, and Romney. There is nothing the Ron Paul wants to expand the federal governments power. Nor does a progressive mean they smoke pot. Please educate yourself of what a progressive is before you try to label Paul or his followers as one.

 

All are harmful, but in theory the less harmful for America and the world probably is Ron Paul.

Most harmful, Rick Santorum I think that is the worst with difference. And the other two are similar.

 

It doesn't matter to Conservatives ... they only want to beet President Obama and American has come last for the past three years.

 

which would you prefer to have for breakfast? a 2 day old donut. Yesterday's warmed over scrabbled eggs, some rancid bacon or a dried out Pop Tart? Or we can continue eating the same old crap we've been served for the last 11 years. Why do we have to choose from only the bad actors to star in our movie? Why does Denzel Washington's or Matt Damon's part have to go to Gary Busey?

 

This thread is like a watching convention of village idiots.

 

None of them would be as damaging as four more years of Obama.

 

A drunk and horny King Kong would be better than Obama.

 

A syphilitic camel would be preferable to Obama.