Santorum is out !

[chickened]

Santorum dropped out because Romney was winning. Santorum actually has a stable life, family and home and we as Americans would not have to worry about Monica Lewinsky's or DUII's or, Bill Ayers or that stuff but have a family man in there that can relate to us. His spiritual life should not even be an issue as with Obama's either.

Capvin is a big boy and can defend himself and his post was humor to me anyhow and the only thing it was missing was at the end " Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury".

 

[Q9]

Santorum dropped out because Romney was winning. Santorum actually has a stable life, family and home and we as Americans would not have to worry about Monica Lewinsky's or DUII's or, Bill Ayers or that stuff but have a family man in there that can relate to us. His spiritual life should not even be an issue as with Obama's either.

Capvin is a big boy and can defend himself and his post was humor to me anyhow and the only thing it was missing was at the end " Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the jury".

Or maybe he dropped because people from his home state hate (PA) him and he was going to lose badly there.

You know what I find frustrating? The "unite behind the inevitable nominee" crap. NO. I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney (Obama with a Republican suit) or Gingrich (Don't get me started. No character whatsoever, seems to think the president can do anything through "executive orders" and wants to build a friggin' moon colony, among many, many other issues.) Why on Earth should I cast my vote for men that I wholeheartedly disagree with? Why should I get behind a flip-flopping moderate on the EXTREMELY dubious grounds that he can "beat Obama?" Isn't that why we ended up with the joke McCain?

More importantly, why the heck do we even give moderates the time of day?! A moderate today is just someone who's good at sitting squarely ON the fence while talking like they're on one side or the other. "Moderate" translates to "no principles."

 

[chickened]

I tend to agree, voting now days is like plug your nose and vote. I actually preferred Herman Cain in the beginning.

People vote their pocketbook usually not their consciences. Voting your conscience will always disappoint you because all your candidates sins are exposed in the process. Everyone has skeletons in their closets.


I will vote Romney most likely (if I vote) there is no way this country or our grandchildren can afford 4 more years of Obama/Obiden.

I will say this Romney will get the economy going again and he is not afraid to cut spending and fire people.

You will never find the perfect candidate and voting is picking the lesser of the two evils. Good hard working people rarely enter the political life and if they do they get a rude awakening and get out usually like Cain.

Or maybe he dropped because people from his home state hate (PA) him and he was going to lose badly there.

You know what I find frustrating? The "unite behind the inevitable nominee" crap. NO. I cannot in good conscience vote for Romney (Obama with a Republican suit) or Gingrich (Don't get me started. No character whatsoever, seems to think the president can do anything through "executive orders" and wants to build a friggin' moon colony, among many, many other issues.) Why on Earth should I cast my vote for men that I wholeheartedly disagree with? Why should I get behind a flip-flopping moderate on the EXTREMELY dubious grounds that he can "beat Obama?" Isn't that why we ended up with the joke McCain?

More importantly, why the heck do we even give moderates the time of day?! A moderate today is just someone who's good at sitting squarely ON the fence while talking like they're on one side or the other. "Moderate" translates to "no principles."

 

[Stacykins]

It seems all political votes, local, state, and federal, have come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils...

 

[Mahonri]

I know Mitt personally. He is a good man. Polling showed Santorum likely losing in PA and he knew if he wanted a political future, it was time to get out.

Everything negative you hear about him from the lame-stream OR ELSEWHERE, media is BUNK. I say in all seriousness that he is the most conservative man to run for president in MANY, MANY years.

Yes, he's gotten more conservative with age and experience, and he'll stay that way, but he'll also work with those on the other side... unlike the current illegal alien in the WH. (His lawyers in New Jersey just admitted that the birth certificate he put out is a fake)---> Obama's lawyer admits his birth certificate is a FORGERY!

Gingrich is a has been. Folks tout his debating skills but, in my opinion, character counts... he is one and has none.

Ron Paul is a very good man. If it weren't for his foreign policy, I'd probably back him over Mitt simply because he is a strict constitutionalist. I'd love to see him as Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration.

I'm hoping that Romney will tap either Mark Rubio or Allen West as his VP. Both are very smart and also, very articulate.

Unless the 'health care act' is repealed we will go into a triple dip recession or a full fledged depression. I pray that the SCOTUS will down it.

 

[kevs-chickadees]

I know Mitt personally. He is a good man. Polling showed Santorum likely losing in PA and he knew if he wanted a political future, it was time to get out.

Everything negative you hear about him from the lame-stream OR ELSEWHERE, media is BUNK. I say in all seriousness that he is the most conservative man to run for president in MANY, MANY years.

Yes, he's gotten more conservative with age and experience, and he'll stay that way, but he'll also work with those on the other side... unlike the current illegal alien in the WH. (His lawyers in New Jersey just admitted that the birth certificate he put out is a fake)---> Obama's lawyer admits his birth certificate is a FORGERY!

Gingrich is a has been. Folks tout his debating skills but, in my opinion, character counts... he is one and has none.

Ron Paul is a very good man. If it weren't for his foreign policy, I'd probably back him over Mitt simply because he is a strict constitutionalist. I'd love to see him as Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration.

I'm hoping that Romney will tap either Mark Rubio or Allen West as his VP. Both are very smart and also, very articulate.

Unless the 'health care act' is repealed we will go into a triple dip recession or a full fledged depression. I pray that the SCOTUS will down it.

Wow, well said and spot on!

 

[chickened]

I know Mitt personally. He is a good man. Polling showed Santorum likely losing in PA and he knew if he wanted a political future, it was time to get out.

Everything negative you hear about him from the lame-stream OR ELSEWHERE, media is BUNK. I say in all seriousness that he is the most conservative man to run for president in MANY, MANY years.

Yes, he's gotten more conservative with age and experience, and he'll stay that way, but he'll also work with those on the other side... unlike the current illegal alien in the WH. (His lawyers in New Jersey just admitted that the birth certificate he put out is a fake)---> Obama's lawyer admits his birth certificate is a FORGERY!

Gingrich is a has been. Folks tout his debating skills but, in my opinion, character counts... he is one and has none.

Ron Paul is a very good man. If it weren't for his foreign policy, I'd probably back him over Mitt simply because he is a strict constitutionalist. I'd love to see him as Secretary of the Treasury in a Romney administration.

I'm hoping that Romney will tap either Mark Rubio or Allen West as his VP. Both are very smart and also, very articulate.

Unless the 'health care act' is repealed we will go into a triple dip recession or a full fledged depression. I pray that the SCOTUS will down it.

 

[Q9]

Lord help us if you people really think that Romney is conservative.

He was in favor of the bailouts; he's got a freaking D- from Gun Owners of America; passed an assault weapons ban, and is on record as opposing semi-automatic weapons; can't forget Romneycare; pro-choice until recently; and so much more. This country cannot afford another election of voting for "the lesser of two evils." We're NEVER going to get out of this mess if we keep doing that. If we keep on voting for the lesser of two evils, WHERE DOES IT STOP?! At what point will we be able to elect a GOOD person?

We are $16 trillion in debt. Romney or Gingrich in office means a definite war with Iran over nuclear weapons that may or may not even exist. Obama in office means a likely war with Iran for the same reasons. Whether they'd be a "threat" or not, the fact is, we cannot afford the foreign policy of anyone EXCEPT Ron Paul! We. Do. Not. Have. MONEY. Arguing the merits of this or that foreign policy or this or that agency is a moot point unless we find a way to finally pay off the debt and balance the budget, because if we keep on this course, we won't have enough cash to HAVE a foreign policy or Federal agencies. Paul's plan is the *only* plan that balances the budget - if Congress will work with him. Even if it doesn't, there's a lot he can still do. He's sworn to veto any unbalanced budget. Romney and Gingrich have not. He's been consistent for years. Romney and Gingrich have not. He's never, EVER taken money from a lobbyist.

Just like Ron Paul, my vote is not for sale. If a candidate wants my vote, they must be seven things:
1) Consistent - rules out the majority, sadly.
2) Constitutionalist - dang near everyone is eliminated with this.
3) A supporter of the free market - this rules out a lot, but not as many as the above two.
4) Fiscally conservative - there are a few that pass this criteria.
5) Willing to go against their party - several that pass here, too.
6) Honestly conservative in foreign policy - by this, I mean that they will not support nation-building, and will not go to war without an actual declaration of war from Congress. In a war, thousands die, and the decision to risk our soldiers' lives must not be made lightly or for dubious reasons.
7) Pro-life - quite simply, I will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. Now, Constitutionally, the Federal government has no power regarding abortion. A pro-life candidate would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, however.

Those are extremely strict criteria, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who does not meet them all.

 

[hemet dennis]

Lord help us if you people really think that Romney is conservative.

He was in favor of the bailouts; he's got a freaking D- from Gun Owners of America; passed an assault weapons ban, and is on record as opposing semi-automatic weapons; can't forget Romneycare; pro-choice until recently; and so much more. This country cannot afford another election of voting for "the lesser of two evils." We're NEVER going to get out of this mess if we keep doing that. If we keep on voting for the lesser of two evils, WHERE DOES IT STOP?! At what point will we be able to elect a GOOD person?

We are $16 trillion in debt. Romney or Gingrich in office means a definite war with Iran over nuclear weapons that may or may not even exist. Obama in office means a likely war with Iran for the same reasons. Whether they'd be a "threat" or not, the fact is, we cannot afford the foreign policy of anyone EXCEPT Ron Paul! We. Do. Not. Have. MONEY. Arguing the merits of this or that foreign policy or this or that agency is a moot point unless we find a way to finally pay off the debt and balance the budget, because if we keep on this course, we won't have enough cash to HAVE a foreign policy or Federal agencies. Paul's plan is the *only* plan that balances the budget - if Congress will work with him. Even if it doesn't, there's a lot he can still do. He's sworn to veto any unbalanced budget. Romney and Gingrich have not. He's been consistent for years. Romney and Gingrich have not. He's never, EVER taken money from a lobbyist.

Just like Ron Paul, my vote is not for sale. If a candidate wants my vote, they must be seven things:
1) Consistent - rules out the majority, sadly.
2) Constitutionalist - dang near everyone is eliminated with this.
3) A supporter of the free market - this rules out a lot, but not as many as the above two.
4) Fiscally conservative - there are a few that pass this criteria.
5) Willing to go against their party - several that pass here, too.
6) Honestly conservative in foreign policy - by this, I mean that they will not support nation-building, and will not go to war without an actual declaration of war from Congress. In a war, thousands die, and the decision to risk our soldiers' lives must not be made lightly or for dubious reasons.
7) Pro-life - quite simply, I will never vote for a pro-choice candidate. Now, Constitutionally, the Federal government has no power regarding abortion. A pro-life candidate would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, however.

Those are extremely strict criteria, but I cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who does not meet them all.

Can you tell us how does he plans to balance the budget ?

 

[Q9]

Can you tell us how does he plans to balance the budget ?

Well, I can't articulate it particularly well, so I'll just post his plan (which he has on his site, and is VERY detailed, unlike everyone else's.). Abstract is up top, details are below.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/ron-paul-plan-to-restore-america/