New Presidential Poll

Ok it's pretty clear now who the real choices are going into the republican primaries. I wanna see where everyone is standing at this point. Is it going to be 4 more years of Obama? Has Newt talked his way to your vote? Has Mitt impressed you with his work in the private sector? Or has the consistency and constitutional approach of Ron Paul won you over? Wherever your leaning right now let us know and why. I want to get a good sample here so it would be appreciated if everyone voted.

I really don't know at this point, if I vote at all. My gut tells me we will see 4 more years of Obama. I think Romney is out and Newt is a lock for the Rep nod.

Zigg do you still have the same view on Ron and that he can't win? Right now he is in a statistical tie in Iowa with Newt and polling 2nd in New Hampshire.

Ron Paul

there we go bbc!

oggy420 wrote:

there we go bbc!

Paul day, every day!

oggy420 wrote:

Zigg do you still have the same view on Ron and that he can't win? Right now he is in a statistical tie in Iowa with Newt and polling 2nd in New Hampshire.

If I vote he will probably get my vote. People can blame who they want for it, but I really don't think he can. VERY difficult for an Independent to do anything but steal votes. If he was younger I think he'd have a better chance but who knows. Hopefully I'm wrong, can't possibly be worse.

If Paul comes out as the republican nominee, I'll jump the aisle. Otherwise Obama.

I'll vote Obama here, cause unfortuneately I don't see Paul winning the red vote.

i honestly would like to know why someone would vote obama another 4 yrs

me too but then again i cant see myself voting fir Mit or Newt either

Romney.

I think he is easily a wisest choice to face the economy over anybody in the GOP field and especially over the economically hapless Obama. That is his selling point. I can see Mitt running foriegn affairs similar to Obama which overall i have not had a problem with. I think Obama is leaving Iraq open for Iran to move in, but i think overall he has shown that if we are fucked with we'll step on the throat..call it savage or what not but the US is not the only place in the world that wants to step on toes so we have to keep a strong presence. I think Obama has suprisingly done well in that regard and Romney would likely carry on the same way in that regard. Mainly by letting the intelligence and military do their jobs. Plus, Romney is the squeaky clean guy in the GOP field. By that i mean, We know that often election races are decided on a lot of things OUTSIDE of actual policy. The best thing people can call Mitt on is that he is morman, he's a flip flipper and some call him a RINO. Good luck running against a guys religion, Obama is not exactly mr consistancy himself, and it's not like conservatives not vote for Mitt in the election if it meant getting Obama out, although Mitt overall is too moderate for them. So the flip flop shit will become moot once Mitt gets outof the GOP race against firm conservative candidates who only look to please a party over the nation as a whole. Romney and Paul are the only two that can get needed republican, independent, and democrat votes IMO. Everybody talks about "who can debate with Obama" like it's still 2008. Obama didnt have 4 years of futility to answer for in 2008, and an economist and probably the best debater in the GOP field like Mitt will exploit Obama in debate in that regard. There is simply not other reason Romney would even be in the discussion if his strengths did not fall in line with the needs of the nation.

As for Ron Paul. Out of all the candidates, he most falls in line with my core beliefs for the US. I consider myself an independent who sides with conservatives fiscally, and has a pretty liberal POV on a lot of social things..but overall, i think government should see their way the fuck out of the american(rich or poor) lives outside of protecting basic laws, which Ron Paul has been the voice of in the GOP field. Domestically, i love Paul and support his throwback republicanisim...However,foriegn wise...i'm not confident that he won't come into office lackadasical and get our butthole fucked by some haters. I understand spending for wars and innocent lives but It's a small world and there are cultures out there who want to destroy it for no reason that has anything to do with life on earth. I think our presence(not the drug war, that needs to end) is absolutely necessary and Paul has been firmly anti-THAT..so, that is where we differ.

I have no confidence in Gingrich to win the presidency. I don't see Ron Paul getting the nod, and he does not have enough mass support to run as an independent and win, he'll end up just ruining the GOP candidate like a modern day Ross Perot. Romney is the best choice in debate, exploiting the failures of Obama, and debating on the most pressing topic, the economy.

Cu Bu wrote:

i honestly would like to know why someone would vote obama another 4 yrs

Core beliefs along with not buying into the vilification that right wing media has sent his way(which is so off base at times it is comical).

I know the economy sucks, but they were talking depression era calamity, and that was diverted. And despite repeated calls for it(see above), there has been no dipple dip.

Nabbing Osama, getting out of Iraq, not getting involved too deep in Libya as well as other mid east revolutions.

And if anyone thinks Newt or Mitt would offer some huge change in terms of stimulating the economy or cutting the defecit they are kidding themselves. Either guy would cut Obama care strictly for political reasons, and then pretty much business as usual after that.

If people want change, Paul is the way to go. I don't see how he is not the clear cut conservative choice. Only conservative up there.

G.W. was underrated and over criticized. The "promises" and slogans that got Obama elected are what grind my gears.

i dont understand how anyone can defend Obama's foreign policy. How is it any different than George Bush's foreign policy? Cheney even praised Obama's foreign policy... thats got to tell you something.

Obama won in 2008 because he blasted Bush for the Wars. He ran as a peace candidate who said he would close Guantanamo Bay, bring the troops home from Iraq - dont be fooled none of the troops in iraq are actually coming home, just being reassigned to the Syrian border or getting ready for Iran which is the next Iraq but will be unbelievably worse.

He expanded the war in Afghanistan, believe what you want about the Osama thing but it's a lie too he'd been dead for years, he bombed the fuck out of Libya, and now we are on the brink of at least 2 more major wars in Syria and Iran.

Yea he's really anti-war isn't he?
Infact he just today signed the NDAA national defense authorization act which ok's the Fed Gov to assassinate, torture, and detain any american citizen for life without ever getting a trial.

KingsOwn19 wrote:

Romney.

I think he is easily a wisest choice to face the economy over anybody in the GOP field and especially over the economically hapless Obama. That is his selling point. I can see Mitt running foriegn affairs similar to Obama which overall i have not had a problem with. I think Obama is leaving Iraq open for Iran to move in, but i think overall he has shown that if we are fucked with we'll step on the throat..call it savage or what not but the US is not the only place in the world that wants to step on toes so we have to keep a strong presence. I think Obama has suprisingly done well in that regard and Romney would likely carry on the same way in that regard. Mainly by letting the intelligence and military do their jobs. Plus, Romney is the squeaky clean guy in the GOP field. By that i mean, We know that often election races are decided on a lot of things OUTSIDE of actual policy. The best thing people can call Mitt on is that he is morman, he's a flip flipper and some call him a RINO. Good luck running against a guys religion, Obama is not exactly mr consistancy himself, and it's not like conservatives not vote for Mitt in the election if it meant getting Obama out, although Mitt overall is too moderate for them. So the flip flop shit will become moot once Mitt gets outof the GOP race against firm conservative candidates who only look to please a party over the nation as a whole. Romney and Paul are the only two that can get needed republican, independent, and democrat votes IMO. Everybody talks about "who can debate with Obama" like it's still 2008. Obama didnt have 4 years of futility to answer for in 2008, and an economist and probably the best debater in the GOP field like Mitt will exploit Obama in debate in that regard. There is simply not other reason Romney would even be in the discussion if his strengths did not fall in line with the needs of the nation.

As for Ron Paul. Out of all the candidates, he most falls in line with my core beliefs for the US. I consider myself an independent who sides with conservatives fiscally, and has a pretty liberal POV on a lot of social things..but overall, i think government should see their way the fuck out of the american(rich or poor) lives outside of protecting basic laws, which Ron Paul has been the voice of in the GOP field. Domestically, i love Paul and support his throwback republicanisim...However,foriegn wise...i'm not confident that he won't come into office lackadasical and get our butthole fucked by some haters. I understand spending for wars and innocent lives but It's a small world and there are cultures out there who want to destroy it for no reason that has anything to do with life on earth. I think our presence(not the drug war, that needs to end) is absolutely necessary and Paul has been firmly anti-THAT..so, that is where we differ.

I have no confidence in Gingrich to win the presidency. I don't see Ron Paul getting the nod, and he does not have enough mass support to run as an independent and win, he'll end up just ruining the GOP candidate like a modern day Ross Perot. Romney is the best choice in debate, exploiting the failures of Obama, and debating on the most pressing topic, the economy.

"However,foriegn wise...i'm not confident that he won't come into office lackadasical and get our butthole fucked by some haters. I understand spending for wars and innocent lives but It's a small world and there are cultures out there who want to destroy it for no reason that has anything to do with life on earth. I think our presence(not the drug war, that needs to end) is absolutely necessary and Paul has been firmly anti-THAT..so, that is where we differ"

ok. im just trying to understand where you are coming from. So you believe that if Ron Paul were president and ended all these wars and brought our troops home, that we would get attacked? While i understand this logic it is flawed because no one attacks us because we are "free and prosperous". That is propaganda. Even the CIA admits that an overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks are the result of blowback, or the unintended consequences of covert operations by our government. We are hated because we occupy sovereign nations, steal their resources, kill their people, and act like we are the policemen of the world. Please don't fall for the "RA RA support our troops or your not American!" shit. You might not know this but the troops actually overwhelmingly support Ron Paul. He gets more donations from active duty military and veterans than triple all other republican candidates combines and yes, way more than even Obama.

Please watch this video in its entirety - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=I8NhRPo0WAo

and if you are interested read - Confessions of an Economic Hitman by NSA agent John Perkins

captain organic wrote:

If people want change, Paul is the way to go. I don't see how he is not the clear cut conservative choice. Only conservative up there.

oggy420 wrote:

Infact he just today signed the NDAA national defense authorization act which ok's the Fed Gov to assassinate, torture, and detain any american citizen for life without ever getting a trial.

Heard about that and I'm pissed about it, how does that get threw???

it didnt get thrown it got through

Four more years !

captainorganic wrote:

If people want change, Paul is the way to go. I don't see how he is not the clear cut conservative choice. Only conservative up there.

I can clearly see why he is not the conservative choosey conservatives choose.

because he's not an establishment corporate owned neo-con who will do whatever the people with money tell him to

Ninja's place smart ads tonight!

OU wrote:

G.W. was underrated and over criticized. The "promises" and slogans that got Obama elected are what grind my gears.

You do realize that the only way a presidential candidate is has any chance of getting elected is to make promises that he has no chance of keeping?

franklinfan2 wrote:

OU wrote:

G.W. was underrated and over criticized. The "promises" and slogans that got Obama elected are what grind my gears.

You do realize that the only way a presidential candidate is has any chance of getting elected is to make promises that he has no chance of keeping?

I don't remember it ever getting to that extreme before. The slogan "Yes we can" got more votes then the man that is Obama. The idea of Obama is what was elected.

That's true. The "yes we can" slogan made you feel like a lot was going to get accomplished during his presidency.