Fred Supporters: who are you supporting

[avatar4321]

Since Fred dropped out where are you going?

[CockySOB]

Not sure at this point. I don't much care for any of the others, so it may take me a bit to decide who to support now.

But you can be certain I won't be voting for a Democrat!

[theHawk]

I would have to say McCain. I know he is a flamming liberal at times, but honestly, I think he is the only person I would trust as Commander-in-Chief. Not to mention he is the only one with a chance in hell of beating Hillary. Huckabee would get beaten over the head because of his 1000 pardons of criminals and he'll be demonized as a religious fanatic. And I really could never trust what Mitt's team of lawyers will end up doing about Iran.

[NATO AIR]

Its funny... I was a McCain supporter in the summer but his campaign looked dead, so I looked to Fred to carry the mantle of leadership. I loved his debate performances and his points about our financial state, our need for a less monarchist/absolute executive branch, common sense reforms of social issues like health courts for malpractice cases and job training programs paid for by employers and the government together.

Now he's moved on. So I'm back to McCain. I would love to see Fred as a VP or AG though.

I think he'd actually be a good AG... he's got a good background for it and has a great grasp of the problems of corruption, overarching government power and the Constitution, something our last AG's have all had issues with (Reno, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Mukasey). I would hope he would consider it... his country needs him. We have a lot of fixing to do after 16 years....

[5stringJeff]

Thompson was my #2. But Ron Paul is still my #1.

[-Cp]

Thompson was my #2. But Ron Paul is still my #1.


Uhh.. yeah.. the dude who claims we waged an "illegal war" - who thought 9/11 was an inside job and who wants an immediate troop withdrawl.. Sure... I could see why someone would favor him! LOL.... Really? Wow...

[5stringJeff]

Except for his views on 9/11, the legality of Iraq, and free trade, I agree with almost all his views.

[Abbey Marie]

I am currently leaning towards Romney, but I do very much like certain things about Giuliani. I would have to overlook his immigration and other social policies to support him, so it's really iffy. We'll see.

[Pale Rider]

Romney. If I was a democrat I'd vote for McLame because he's a liberal.

[manu1959]

i am going for mccain cuz i know it will put pales knickers in a twist....

[LiberalNation]

Hillary still, hope she get's the dem party nod.

[manu1959]

Hillary still, hope she get's the dem party nod.

what three things will hillary do that you agree with....

[Yurt]

still unsure, however, i think this country needs a good business/economic leader. socialism is not going to save this country.

[Pale Rider]

i am going for mccain cuz i know it will put pales knickers in a twist....

coming from a left coast rino, that doesn't surprize me... or the fact that you fantasize about men in knickers...

[manu1959]

coming from a left coast rino, that doesn't surprize me... or the fact that you fantasize about men in knickers...

depends which gop platform you consider the base.....

how about this which gop pres would say is your model pres.....what were his core issues and which ones do you disagree with.....

and lets start with this ...... what social issues should the federal govt be involved in....

[LiberalNation]

what three things will hillary do that you agree with....

Her views on advancment of women, social issues like abortion and sex ed, restoring americas image, healthcare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

[manu1959]

Her views on advancment of women, social issues like abortion and sex ed, restoring americas image, healthcare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

so you want a sexist mom......:poke:

[hjmick]

I'm supporting Pat Paulson.

[JackDaniels]

Uhh.. yeah.. the dude who claims we waged an "illegal war" - who thought 9/11 was an inside job and who wants an immediate troop withdrawl.. Sure... I could see why someone would favor him! LOL.... Really? Wow...

I hope you're a little more informed than to think that Ron Paul believes 9/11 was an inside job. To suggest Ron believes that is ignorant of the last year of campaigning.

[JackDaniels]

Except for his views on 9/11, the legality of Iraq, and free trade, I agree with almost all his views.

You're a protectionist? Ron Paul is in favor of 100% free trade. That's why he's against NAFTA; NAFTA and other bureaucratic government managed "free trade" agreements actually work in favor of protectionism in many respects.

Here's a snipet from the Ron Paul newsletter from two years ago:


I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: it is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

We don’t need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, tariffs are simply taxes on consumers. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people. We don’t need CAFTA or any other international agreement to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.
Source: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=412

[Pale Rider]

depends which gop platform you consider the base.....

how about this which gop pres would say is your model pres.....what were his core issues and which ones do you disagree with.....

and lets start with this ...... what social issues should the federal govt be involved in....

None of them are a model President to me. How about you?

Myself, I'm anti abortion, pro gun, anti tax, pro liberty, for less government, against homo marriage, anti illegal alien/amnesty, and I wish we'd untangle ourselves from all these nasty wars over seas that we can't afford and stretches our military to the brink. That's kind of the quick, in a nut shell position I have. Is there a GOP candidate that thinks exactly like that? I don't think so. I'll have to hold my nose and vote for whoever is closest to keep a damn liberal out of the White House. I'll probably vote for Romney.

[Pale Rider]

Her views on advancment of women, social issues like abortion and sex ed, restoring americas image, healthcare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

"Restore America's image?" So... you think recycling a clinton that's reportedly a dyke, and her husband was the second President in HISTORY to be IMPEACHED, is somehow going to, "restore America's image?"

Just how is THAT suppose to happen... precisely?

[LiberalNation]

The Clintons are popular in the west. She'd mend bridges with allies Bush has ticked off. Nobody cares about stupid rumors of her being gay or Bill's blow job in the big scheme of things.


against homo marriage
if you want the feds to regulate marriage to stop it your not for a smaller/less government. Should be a state issues.

[Pale Rider]

The Clintons are popular in the west. She'd mend bridges with allies Bush has ticked off. Nobody cares about stupid rumors of her being gay or Bill's blow job in the big scheme of things.
Well, I'd disagree the clintons are all that popular. Just waving the white flag every time we're attacked by terrorists isn't going to "restore our image," and if it did, it would be to the wrong people. That's showing weakness.



if you want the feds to regulate marriage to stop it your not for a smaller/less government. Should be a state issues.
That's fine. Fight the homos on whatever level that's needed. Spreading that sickness is not something that's good for the country.

[5stringJeff]

You're a protectionist? Ron Paul is in favor of 100% free trade. That's why he's against NAFTA; NAFTA and other bureaucratic government managed "free trade" agreements actually work in favor of protectionism in many respects.

Here's a snipet from the Ron Paul newsletter from two years ago:


Source: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=412

I'm not a protectionist, I'm a free trade advocate. However, I disagree that NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are either harmful or unconstitutional. Such treaties create a stable business climate, in which companies can form international supply chains without worrying whether Congress will decide to slap a tariff on them because they collectively woke up on the wrong side of the bed. And tariff treaties have been forged since the beginning of our Republic, by such presidents as Jefferson and Madison. If the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence didn't find tariff treaties unconstitutional, I think it's safe to say that they are OK.

[Sitarro]

I am currently leaning towards Romney, but I do very much like certain things about Giuliani. I would have to overlook his immigration and other social policies to support him, so it's really iffy. We'll see.

I agree with you Abbey, Steve Forbes wrote an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal explaining Rudy's ideas on taxes....... sounded pretty good. I would support either. The Democrat empty suits need to be defeated at all cost....... they are an insult to anyone with the least amount of intelligence, they sound just like the union twerps that were promising the world to my fellow workers to get the vote.

[NATO AIR]

I'm not a protectionist, I'm a free trade advocate. However, I disagree that NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. are either harmful or unconstitutional. Such treaties create a stable business climate, in which companies can form international supply chains without worrying whether Congress will decide to slap a tariff on them because they collectively woke up on the wrong side of the bed. And tariff treaties have been forged since the beginning of our Republic, by such presidents as Jefferson and Madison. If the writers of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence didn't find tariff treaties unconstitutional, I think it's safe to say that they are OK.

Actually CAFTA was bad because it was so one-sided.. the US essentially gets most of the benefits, if not all.

If it had been "Free Trade", we wouldn't be maintaining our illegal and counter-productive agricultural subsides that enrich a few thousand millionaires and do squat for the average American and terribly hurt the average non-American.

[Black Lance]

Such treaties create a stable business climate, in which companies can form international supply chains without worrying whether Congress will decide to slap a tariff on them because they collectively woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

Or maybe the Congressmen "wake up one day" and realize that helping working class American citizens keep their jobs will help them get re-elected?

[5stringJeff]

Actually CAFTA was bad because it was so one-sided.. the US essentially gets most of the benefits, if not all.

If it had been "Free Trade", we wouldn't be maintaining our illegal and counter-productive agricultural subsides that enrich a few thousand millionaires and do squat for the average American and terribly hurt the average non-American.

I didn't realize that agricultural subsidies were not a part of CAFTA. They (agricultural subsidies) should be done away with, CAFTA or no CAFTA.

[5stringJeff]

Or maybe the Congressmen "wake up one day" and realize that helping working class American citizens keep their jobs will help them get re-elected?

Free trade agreements only make our economy more efficient. Yes, some workers in some industries will lose their jobs. But since NAFTA was signed, our unemployment has remained at 4-5%, which is considered "full employment." So it's not like free trade agreements cost jobs in the long run.

[Black Lance]

Free trade agreements only make our economy more efficient. Yes, some workers in some industries will lose their jobs. But since NAFTA was signed, our unemployment has remained at 4-5%, which is considered "full employment." So it's not like free trade agreements cost jobs in the long run.

You should go to Flint and say that. Or Detroit.

Thousands of Americans working in the manufacturing sector have lost jobs due to NAFTA. In what economic sector have we gained jobs due to that treaty 5StringJeff? I would ask that you be specific, since many free traders try to take jobs created by natural economic growth and misattribute them to free trade.

[Gaffer]

I'm not happy with any of the choices left in the gop race. And there is not a single democrat running that I would even consider saving their life, let alone vote for them. The country has a nasty and bloody future ahead with no leadership. There's not a leader to be found in either party. I'm tired of voting for the lessor of two evils.

[5stringJeff]

You should go to Flint and say that. Or Detroit.

Thousands of Americans working in the manufacturing sector have lost jobs due to NAFTA. In what economic sector have we gained jobs due to that treaty 5StringJeff? I would ask that you be specific, since many free traders try to take jobs created by natural economic growth and misattribute them to free trade.

A ten-year anniversary study of NAFTA by the Congressional Research Center (http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf) found the following:

Domestic Economic Effects
NAFTA slightly increased growth in output and productivity.
NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment.
NAFTA contributed to employment shifts among sectors.

So if I said that in Flint or Detriot, I'm sure I'd be run out of town, but at least I'd have the facts behind me.